Fatwa took you so long ?
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is being investigated by Pakistani police under a section of the penal code that makes blasphemy against Muhammad punishable by death. BBC Urdu reports — according to a Google Translation — that Pakistan's Deputy Attorney General has launched a criminal investigation against Zuckerberg and …
All computer users [Pakistan inclusive] are able to decide which websites to visit. If they don't like the content don't use Facebook.
Why in the west do we feel the need to bend over backward to make our cultures accommodate anyone else's? We certainly are not afforded the same courtesy in return.
Since the Internet is a western creation, controlled by civilized countries shouldn't we give the ultimatum. On our Internet we will exercise freedom of speech. If you don't like it you don't have to be part of it.
Was with you until this piece of entitlement:
"Since the Internet is a western creation, controlled by civilized countries shouldn't we give the ultimatum. On our Internet we will exercise freedom of speech."
The US don't own the internet any more than Pakistan, so no, it should not have any ultimatum.
Why would you assume I refer to the US? I am British.
But on the contrary the Internet was setup and IS mostly funded by USA, Britain, Germany, France - ie the west.
We can happily do without the non english content contributed by Pakistan, for that matter I would take no issue with disconnecting China too.
They can have their own Internet just by fragmenting the network. We dont need them, they need us.
"Why would you assume I refer to the US? I am British."
To quote you...
"Since the Internet is a western creation, controlled by civilized countries shouldn't we give the ultimatum."
Technically the Internet is a US creation. By that logic, the US (not you British) should get the ultimatum. Obviously that logic is wrong and elitist, you merely used it because you thought it entitled you to get an ultimatum.
"But on the contrary the Internet was setup and IS mostly funded by USA, Britain, Germany, France - ie the west."
The internet is mostly consumed by the west, therefor it would make sense that it is mostly funded there too. Besides, worldwide peering is mutually beneficial for all of us.
"We can happily do without the non english content contributed by Pakistan, for that matter I would take no issue with disconnecting China too. They can have their own Internet just by fragmenting the network. We dont need them, they need us."
Really? Banning innocent people because of where they're from? Why do you think you are better than they are? That's racist. Ban them for having different ideologies than you? That's censorship. If we put up a firewall to cut off the east, then we are hypocrites.
What if the east becomes the world superpower, I imagine that you will be very unhappy if they show you the same respect that you've shown them.
The Internet is a British invention from the BBS, newsgroup and IRC origins at British universities to the founding father of the Internet Sir Tim Berners-Lee.
Next you are going to state that USA gave us TV, electric, golf, fibre optics, nuclear power, flushing toilets, steam engines, radio etc etc.
I should have stated more clearly we fund the Internet disproportionately. The rest of the worlds consumers [China and Japan excluded] freeload.
Excuse me but where does anyone in the west benefit from Pakistan being on our Internet?
The correct term would be xenophobia not racism but lets not be pedantic. Its nothing to do with race, its to do with cultures that purport to be against our culture and ideologies yet have the nerve to complain about how we use our creations.
On the point of innocent, anyone who idly sits by and does nothing about their own country funding, training and sheltering terrorists is no more innocent that those who commit crimes against the west.
We are already too accommodating of the needs of foreign nations with interests that are not just different but on too many occasions in direct conflict with our own.
Liberals like yourself are happy to give away the privileges generations have sacrificed to provide for us to those who lack the ability to not fight each other long enough to make any real contribution to mankind.
There's a couple of tells to determine the internet's origins.
First, the name and lineage comes from ARPAnet, which was named after the US's Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Second is the IP4 allocation blocks, seen at http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/map_of_the_internet.jpg
Note how the first dozen or two /8 subnet blocks are companies or government organizations that are based in the US.
Third is the domain naming, which is why typing in .gov, even while in the UK, will instead lead to a government in the US.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee, while doing a lot to advance the internet, is about 20 to 30 years too late to be a founding father of the Internet. Founding father of the World Wide Web, yes, but we're too technical to get those two confused, right?
Man, you need to cool off... Instead creating enemies at every turn and depriving Pakistanis of the benefits of modern life, we should be finding ways towards peaceful coexistence and integration. No single viewpoint is ever right since everyone makes mistakes. To not respect each other as rational humans at a basic level is to sentence the human race to perpetual inequality and violence. Your bigotry disgusts me.
As much as you might like it to be true that being nice to someone will make them nice to you it simply isn't the case.
Grow up. Muslims don't think like you and I. Their faith is more important than their lives or any rational thought. You might want a peaceful coexistence but that is not an objective laid out in the Qur'an. We are an obstacle to be crushed not a potential ally. Mohammed doesn't teach people to play well with others just to destroy or assimilate.
I do not think its bigotry to be realistic about the potential for peace. You cant afford to open your arms and welcome someone who doesn't want to be your friend. You can turn the other cheek, I will take an eye for an eye - preferably pre emptively.
You go back to your salad and your human rights campaigns for our enemies and the rest of us will worry about your safety.
Just to clarify, IRC has very clearly Finnish roots in its' early history (University of Oulu). SSH was first implemented in Finland (Helsinki University of Technology) and Linux (obviously used in lot of networking gear and servers) has its' beginnings in University of Helsinki.
Still, I find concept of "nationality", national ownership and control of open technologies amusing, to say the least.
I really loathe this definition of the West as civilised/other parts of the world as uncivilised.
For a start it's a distinction that's been used over millennia to justify all manner of atrocities, like the genocides of aboriginal Australians and native Americans. More recently it's that sort of thinking that's allowed the vileness we saw in Abu Grahib.
Secondly it's bollocks. Ask an assylum seeker, forced to survive on Red Cross food vouchers in "civilised" Britain.
With regard to asylum seekers - Its a mark of a civilized country that we even accept requests for asylum. Said seeker should feel blessed that we allow him to stay and give him food in any form. He would likely be afforded a small cell and daily torture if he went home where he belongs.
If you want to compare, pop over to Pakistan and see if you can seek asylum at all. See if they will even bring you an interpreter if you dont speak the language.
I guess I will see you back at Heathrow in a couple days [if you are lucky].
I think when we talk about civilization we are referring to:
Disparity between rich and poor
Not supporting terrorists
Not exploiting children
Respecting others right to be alive
Having a voice politically and legally
A general standard of education regardless of wealth
A general standard of healthcare regardless of wealth
Freedom from discrimination on basis of gender
Freedom from discrimination on basis of sexuality
Freedom from discrimination on basis of religion
Stop being such an ungrateful moron, we live in prosperous countries in the lap of luxury.
NO you may not.
I say OUR not every bodies because the majority of the backbone equipment and data centres are situated and paid for by European or North American nations. We are also the only ones who contribute toward managing and planning ongoing development.
But I agree - we should never apologise for our cultures ethos of freedom. Anyone who disagrees with it and threatens us should be greeted with an 'F you Jimmy'.
As much as I hate Mr Z and his awful service and its breeches of free speech I take threats against our culture seriously.
Rather from the world.
First the nuclear tech theft from Holland and reselling it to every crazy dictator under the sun.
Then creating the Taleban and supporting them till this day for all practical purposes financing 9/11 and the ongoing war against the coalition in Afghanistan.
And now all these crazies.
The powers that be really have to understand that there are severe limitations to "the enemy of my friend is my friend" maxima and Pakistan is probably one of the best examples for this.
The whole country should be embargoed for a few decades. Nobody leaves nobody enters. Nothing is imported. Not like it has oil or something else that is of interest to us.
"Cut Pakistan from the Internet completely"
Yeah, of course! That's a reasoned reaction from the superior nation with the moral high ground! Cut them off! They're only a backward nation anyway. That's what we need - more simple answers from simpletons, It's common sense, you couldn't make it up, IYLISMWDYGLT, etc, etc.
My previous jokes regarding a Great American Firewall notwithstanding, I love the notion that cutting a country from the Internet is "simple."
Sometimes I can feel the grey matter at the front of my brain starting to liquefy...
Let them investigate.. blasphemy last time I looked wasn't a crime in the USA..which means he can't extradited to Pakistan.
if Pakistan could extradite someone for violating the laws in their country even though no crime has been commited in their country and it's not an offence in the country the guy resides in then they'd be able to arrest and extradite (and presumably kill by firing squad or stoning to death) literally hundreds of thouands of British men and women for committing adultery, for having sex without being married. And probably the odd million Americans too...and Europeans....
If Pakistan wants to be taken seriously then it needs to start behaving sensibly, pragmatically, show respect for the laws and cultures of other countries and pull it's head out of it's religious a**se!
And yes, I have spent time in Pakistan.
and also, why is zuckerberg being threatened with prosecution, just because he's the boss? He doesn't have day-to-day control of the groups/discussions that take place on facebook. If they're going after him, they're going to have to go for all facebook staff aren't they?
And why are all these posts being deleted be the moderators :S
It would be interesting for people to be able to read those comments, suitably anonymized and with swear words ******'d out.
I'm sure that most of them will be un-constructive trolling, but how can us normal (stop sniggering!) people know where the line is?
Maybe a 'reg uncut' toggle or rose-tinted Reg option or something?
It would be interesting to know why my post linking to the "Mohammed Image Archive" showing that, in the past, Muslims have often depicted Mohammed was first approved and then subsequently disapproved.
Perhaps without the link the mere statement of fact will be acceptable?
...some fairly vicious posts that haven't been modded out of existence, I can't imagine what the ones that do get modded contain.
So, can we have an "asbestos specs" feed please, so we can gaze upon this unspeakable torrent?
It can't be any worse that some sites that deal with, how do I say this, other effluent!
Paris, well because.....
if it's an internationally recognised crime to insult religious figures?
Whilst I deplore the whole facebook day thingy - they had some pretty offensive pictures and showed very little tolerance towards a group of people - I think Pakistan has more to worry about than to "off with his head". I mean, talk about priorities, you know things like reliable electricity, well-built roads, etc etc. Hell, they don't even have the same "call to prayer" between 2 mosques.
As for elawyn's comment, are we saying that we should punish the entire population of a country for the misguided actions of a few vocal people? Hasn't that been tried before? And before you say things like "well why don't the locals be vocal as well", I think you'll find that Pakistan is such a poor country that the majority of the population is far more concerned about where their next meal is going to come from.
Grenade - cos we all know that a pakistani sleeps with one under his pillow. Oh wait, I meant to say that the tabloid media reports it as such.
A few years ago Pakistan, egged on by the Organisation of the Islamic conference, put forward a resolution to the UN Commission on Human Rights entitled "Defamation of Islam" in order to get the Commissioner to stand up to what they claimed was a campaign to defame their particular form of delusional quackery. It was actually adopted, but first changed to include all religions, and has been renewed ever since.
I recall it being extremely controversial at the time, with accusations that Pakistan was trying to twist the UNs arm to clamp down on freedom of expression. Presumably they had in mind something stronger than the UN delivered.
The UN were petitioned by a number of muslim countries to have blasphemy recognised as a 'crime'. The UN, being the 'moderate' organ that it is, capitulated. Using this 'law' Pakistan can indeed request the extradition of anybody to face trail in Pakistan. You can have a watch of something here [ http://richarddawkins.net/videos/3630-freedom-under-fire-u-n-anti-blasphemy-resolution] through the Richard Dawkins site.
The law was passed in 2008, so is not new. Nor has it really been tested. Might this be the litmus paper ? There is a pretty good summary here [https://richarddawkins.net/articles/3330?page=1&scope=latest&type=articles] as well.
Enjoy your freedom while it lasts…..
Thanks to the utter feckwits (close but no cigar) of Nu Liebour. We are all subject to the EU arrest warrants. Now if Turkey joins the EU...they are adherents to that ironically termed Religion of 'Peace' (and death threats, exploding things and beheadings etc).
Anyway if Turkey joins the EU they can swear out a warrant for Xenophobia or blasphemy take your pick. Then this EU arrest warrant can arrest and extradite you from your own country to theirs.
Midnight Express man!
So zuckerberg and anyone else in the EU isn't safe any more.
So I say feck the ROP and the 12th century savages who beleive in that stuff.
While I still can!
Free speech is dead in the EU.
Ac for obvious reasons!
The Pakistani police seem to have the same "lawyers without borders" mentality that characterizes British courts trying libel cases. (And, to be fair, much of the US government, not to mention whatever the American Trial Lawyers Association now calls itself.)
But it seems unlikely that US courts will consider this an extraditable offense. And surely the interest on the interest of Mr. Z's bank accounts would hire him more and burlier bodyguards than ever Salman Rushdie had.
The question is not "how many gods do you have," but "what kind of god do you serve?" or perhaps rephrased as, "to whom do you give your ultimate allegiance?"
Some people place it in an external deity, some people put themselves at the top of the tree.
First you need to check the theory behind the value-system. Then check the practice. Do they match? Is the practise a result of the theory, in spite of the theory or not addressed by the theory?
If the primary spokesperson for your value-system raises an army and uses force to make people carry out the correct actions, you're probably going to have problems later on too.
It isn't like atheist-humanists like Stalin or Mao hurt any one, is it? We've never heard of followers of Buddhism (a philosophy) or Hindus (polytheists) fighting have we? We never have to worry about spirit-worshipping Africans starting tribal warfare. The 95% non-church-going UK didn't seem that worried about re-electing a government it knew to have taken them into war of aggression on false pretences, did it?
When people get into power, they tend to use it to further their own view of things. Sometimes that view is "I will fight my god's battles for him," sometimes it is "I'm staying at the top of the pile for as long as possible."
Let's face it, people have a natural inclination to evil. Fortunately, it's only other people who are evil, so it's probably ok to either kill them or cut them off and leave them to rot on their own.
...but at least you didn't try to claim Hitler was an atheist.
Stalin and Mao: atheists maybe*, but humanists? You need a new dictionary mate.
Humanism is a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice. Stalin and Mao fit this how?
* in so much as they suppressed rivals to the official state "religion" -- the cult of personality based on themselves.
People are okay with the idea of "going over there to kill some people that are also over there." The instant the idea becomes "some people over there want to kill one of us people over here" the world starts to seem a little smaller.
Almost everyone in the western world has committed “crimes” punishable by some pretty terrible punishments according to strict Sharia law. I can say this without reservation, and frankly about 99.9%+ of the population of the western world because so very few of us understand the real differences between the two cultures. Anything from using Mohammed’s name in vain to “carnal relations” under about a squillion different contexts to looking at the wrong woman improperly are all pretty damning in their culture.
We like to think of them as simply crazy, or misguided, or any of a dozen different things that boil down to “their view on life is wrong and ours is right.” To them, we are beneath contempt; sinners of the worst sort and defilers not only of their God, but of everything they believe to be important. Oh, the average Muslim in a poor country probably doesn’t care two hoots about any Western country. But the even slightly better off folks; those with education and exposure to foreign media…it is from them that the fanatics are plucked.
As with out culture, it is also from these same affluent people that our leaders are chosen. In our case, we have leaders steeped in the cult of “me, me, me,” and thus our culture has moved towards the glorification of the self above all other interests. We have only been a “culture” for a few hundred years, and yet look how very deep that influence has become.
To contrast, there has been over a thousand years Muslim leaders who have felt their religion, and with it the strict control of behaviour is critically important. “Me, me ,me” isn’t what rose to the top in their society; “conform, conform, conform” is what did.
We can’t understand it. I’ve studied it for years, and taken quite a lot of time out to discuss the topic at length with academics, devout hard line Muslims, and others. I still can only barely wrap my mind around how truly different our cultures are.
So the idea that these people that we don’t understand, who believe in things we find scary are willing to work through the “proper channels” of our society to get what they want is ABSOLUTELY TERRIFYING to us. It means we have to look at the situation and say “we might not understand them AT ALL, but they obviously are beginning to understand us quite a lot.”
Since we are all of us guilty, it brings forth a primal fear: what if they come for me next?
It is perhaps unlikely, but that doesn’t stop people from being afraid, and what people fear, they lash out at.
I cannot claim anything like the amount of expertise you appear to have, but having read your comment, I am not sure I totally agree with your conclusions.
Yes, it would appear that representatives of these cultures are attempting to use the western originated international tools, but I don't think that they fully understand them..... yet.
One of the primary cultural differences is that Islam is without borders. Muslims have allegiance to their god above all other things. This leads them to think that if they consider something an absolute wrong, it must be wrong anywhere in the world.
If they totally understood the western world, they would also understand the futility of the action that they are taking. Whether this would stop them, I don't know, but it shows that they have a way to go.
What scares me, and I am not trying to in any way be biased against any person, religion or philosophy, is the slow infection of western style democracy by a creeping change. It would appear that this could extend all the way to the International bodies like the UN. Until recently, I felt that the UN was primarily a forum for discussion, but with the actions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, it has become more heavy handed, with individual countries trying to force the UN's to take specific actions. This is a mistake, and if the UN becomes heavily influenced by Islamic states, could backfire on the so called western countries.
What also worries me is that the world of Islam is fragmented, and this can often cause frictions even in Islamic states (think of the Shi'a and Sunni tensions in Iraq). Having this happen on a world scale could be disastrous.
I do not want to live under Sharia law, and I don't want it imposed on me by any external body or agency. Could I paranoid? It's possible, but I don't think so. Could this be an irrational fear? I think that this article answers that question. Am I becoming radicalised, I hope not, but I am beginning to get worried about my own state of mind!
Stop the World! I want to get off.
Having spent quite a lot of time in various middle eastern countries its apparent that almost every person 15-30 who has any level of wealth [albeit a minority in numbers] should also be subject to punishment for.
Dressing like a slut
There's no difference between a night out in Amman and a night out in London bar the fact that everyone jumps in a taxi immediately upon leaving the club rather than hanging around for a fight.
After all, people in the Islamic world got all fired up over those Muhammad cartoons in Danish newspapers, when they so casually and blindly accept Hamas terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. I'm afraid in both cases, it's just a matter of whose ox is gored.
The problem is, though, given the strength of the Western world in clumsy and unselective thermonuclear warheads, and the patience thereof having been largely exhausted by the events of September 11, 2001, it would seem appropriate for the Islamic world to be extremely cautious about any activities on its part that would be annoying to us, and to be eager and swift to distance itself from the forces of terrorism in general.
This does not seem to have been happening to the extent one might like.
Interpol is little more than a coordinating agency and won't touch religious law; to be effective they stick with common denominators. So on one level, it seems surprising that Pakistani government officials would think that Interpol could be persuaded to officially ask US police to arrest Zuckerberg and company for blaspheming Islam. But then, remember that US prosecutors routinely make similarly threatening noises about Craigslist executives over prostitution. All the world's a stage, it seems.
Whether consciously or not, these officials are only positioning Pakistan to have its silly request rejected, so they can wallow in perceived humiliation by the decadent US.
We might not hear much more about this, but the Pakistani equivalents to The Daily Mail are bound to harp on this for a long time to come, and I think that sense of impotent martyrdom is what this is really about.
A Monty Python icon would fit well here.
Actually, this would be a fairly brilliant political move if the lawyer in question was planning on running for any type of office or being the next "appointee" for a high-profile (and paying) position.
How many Western politicians have also rode to power on the platform of "I am more pious/conservative/economically minded/ecologically minded/etc than the current government"?
No matter the culture, every individual wants power, even if it is the power to "help others more". Intent is the only variable over the "human urge", and religion is just a convenient cover.
..outlaw that little book of hate they call their "holy" book.
..disconnect them from the internet.
..don't allow the Adherents Of The Violent Faith (AOTVF) into western countries. They don't have anything useful to trade. The oil can be exchanged at a special place in Wahabistan. Oil against Mercedes.
..get the hell out of the AOTVF Region and get your (border) security to first world standards, Merkins.
It is time for religious fanatics to get a reality check.... THERE IS NO GOD!
There is no physical proof that there is a god.
Gods were created when human-kind were too stupid to understand how the universe works.
And people that say "god spoke to them" to commit barabaric acts usually end up in the funny farm not turned into prophets.
But have you notice that even though they say Islam means "peace" they quick off the mark to kill someone.
It is time they were brought into the 21st Centruy instead of still being stuck in the 7th Century.
So all you can say is that there's no proof either way.
As an example, you've got no proof that my brother exists. So by your logic, he doesn't. If you looked in the right place, however, you'd find that he does. You just haven't looked there yet.
However, having a lack of evidence _for_ the existence of God, or at least His divine influence in day-to-day affairs or any obvious physical presence, means you are generally able to work from the assumption that there is no God, or if there is He is essentially of no consequence and can be ignored.
Also, it's been said before many times- when you talk to God you're praying, when God replies you're clearly mental.
"Yeah, yeah, booooo. Put yourself in our position. And then imagine what some of the comments on a thread like this will be like. The internet doesn't need to see it."
Hold on a tick - don't you moderate the comments before they are posted? Every time I comment it says someone will have a look at it first. Why post it in the first place and then come along and mod it?
Weird set up.
Is that an offer? I wouldn't mind taking you up on it.
Anyway. The tantalising "this we won't let you read" messages sometimes do make me wonder what entirely reasonable and highly intelligent deluded mouthfrothing we're being saved from. For whose good is it, anyway?
Then again, I've read enough cranks (like, oh, the loudest 90% of NANAE) to immediately spot what to ignore. Sometimes I do miss USENET, for killfiles are arguably a far more democratic and less high-handed approach than moderators ever can be. But that way requires every participant to have a certain skill... knowing the state of september, I dare still maintain that's the better approach. Tangentially, no direct corporate association to stir the lawyers does have its upsides. Should get another feed running.
moderator went on a killing spree in this thread !!!
but to be hohnest i can see both german and US goverments just sitting there smirking waiting for the extradition request to come through and just saying GTFO
My god these people fail
Why on earth they think their law has jurisdiction on a server placed somewhere else in the world i have no idea !!
We will shortly be stopping the planet for a short period of time to allow all reasonable people to get off. Religious fanatics, bible bashers, god-and-other-deity-botherers and assorted fruitcakes of all denominations, please do nothing until normal planetary movement is resumed.
You will then be able to continue killing each other.
There is no need to thank us. No, really -- we're looking forward to a better life without you.
...doesn't mean it is in America. In fact, I'm fairly sure it's not, and that's where FB's servers are I would assume. So tough luck Pakistan - how about worrying about important things closer to home rather than what people are drawing on a different continent?
...that the European Arrest Warrant doesn't apply or Mr Z would be on death row inside a week.
Much as I can't abide Mr Z, freedom of speech is important. And will never be reconciled with some aspects of some religions.
'Andy' - was trying to make a point? Or just stir things up?
Interesting to see how Interpol and America react to this one...
The Muslim faith recognizes the Old Testament.
In the Old Testament there is this little detail about some Commandments given by God, one of which is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" (yes, I am aware of the semantic issue between killing and murdering, thank you, but let's keep this short).
As usual, this little thing is promptly forgotten as soon as somebody feels righteous indignation over some self-imagined slight, and we get Strict Sharia Law that authorizes itself to be above God's Commandments.
Thou Shalt Not Kill.
It is short, clear, specific and inescapable. There are no exceptions, no mitigating circumstances or miscellaneous addendums.
Deal with it.
... that certain people demand the right to dictate what happens to others based on their prejudices and do not extend that same courtesy to said others.
Zuckerberg is an asshole, no doubt, and facebook is a tard site, but these guys... these guys are far worse...
Do not give them an inch.
'Thou Shalt Not Kill' first appeared in the King James' abreviated and simplified bible. Prior to that, there was no such commandment. Rather, there were other commandments stipluating when it was okay to kill.
Go look at Exodus: Around 17 there is reference to the war with Aman, post commandments. Indeed, thoughout the bible there are references to war and killing, all of which were acceptable under the commandments. Even Jesus told his deciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords towards the end.
Then again, the King James' bible is missing a lot of other things, such as the gospel according to Timothy, and, perhaps not surprisingly, just who the other Jewish gods were that they gave up worshiping in order to get out of Egypt (hence the reference 'I am the one true god above all others').
On another note... in relation to Extraditions: Don't most countries have a clause about refusing to extradite if they are sending someone to their death? Think that's why the treaty with America needed changing - we could refuse an extradition request if the person was facing the death penalty...
although the Americans may then just kidnap the person and drag them onto American soil - no law in America against that one... and the same is true in Pakistan.
Unlike a similar single person (even with the trinity) based, wide spread faith (loosely) headquartered in Rome, its my understanding that Islamics still have documents written *by* the person in original handwritting, and not just letters and "eye-witness" accounts written hundreds of years after the singular person's "death".
Now, whether you want to live your life, and your family's lives by rules scrawled out by some guy baked by sun and lack of water in the desert who he says he spoke with God (and force your neighbors to do the same), well... that's ultimately your personal decision
I remember a radio preacher (religion irrelevant) who talked about forcing someone to read a book. "No one can ever make you do anything, its ultimately your choice. If someone hands you a book and says - read it, you can say - no. If they hold a gun to your head, you might start thinking... Its not a really large book... It wouldn't take that long to read it... But it is still your choice to do so."
You still have control over your life, and THAT'S what makes extremists of any religion wake up in cold sweats at night.
Pakistani law does not cover the rest of the world. Apparently this Pakistani lawyer disagrees.
But do take note: American law also only applies in America, though by American law to American Citizens elsewhere too. That concept seems to be Just Too Hard for many Americans including those running the judicial system. Or the government, including El Presidente.
Can't really blame Pakistan for trying. After all, American Freedom And Commerce[tm] is trotted out with comparable religious zeal as to make no difference.
<--- This is what I picture Mohammed to look like. All Gods look like that, in my world. Except Richard Dawkins... he's the only one who I bow down and pray to.
So their laws explicitly name Mohammed? Wow... just goes to show how civilised their country is.
Have these people never heard of secularity and laïcité.....?
Pakistan does have an extradition treaty with the US, but as is usually the case the US will not extradite their own citizens.
One problem may arise when Zuckerberg travels to other coutries with an extradition agreement with Pakistan. And of course therwe's always the extraordinary rendition option, not that either of these outcomes is likely.
Don't underestimate the strength of feeling in Pakistan about this matter. And don't underestimate the determination of the government to shut down the Internet, with or without Zuckerberg.
Coz ireland have an anti-blasphemy law - "Dear Leader" brought it in last year, and most US flights stop off in Shannon for refuelling. And are facebook not based in Dublin.
Mind you, we never stopped the rendition flights so he'll probably be OK, more's the pity.
Depicting my holy prophet is a sin my peaceful relgion punishes by cutting off your head. Much as the other 143 offences that are punished by head-off-cutting, according to the holy book written by my prophet.
If you had just dropped our holy book into the dirt, I would have been satisfied with cutting off your hands, but that nasty picture is over the top !!!!!
May the peace of my violent prophet be with you.
jlocke: you're confusing Islamic law with English law. Islamic law only has the death sentence for a handful of things. It was English law pre-1800s that punished nearly every crime with the death sentence (there were hundreds of crimes punishable by death!) If you're English, you should've been taught this in your history classes in school.
i had always said it and had always asked this question why any religion is an acceptable form of insanity?
what we all need to do is wake the hell up and wipe all religions of the face of humanity for our own very survival depends on it as still dominating species on this planet.
and yes because i am cheap i also drew a picture of muhhamed in the dot of one of the i of this post!
Ok, well prove that God doesn't exist!
I am no religious nut job but I do have a faith (Christian in case you were wondering). I am not devout or an extremist but I gain comfort and peace of mind from knowing there is something or someone who knows more about what is going on then someone like you or I.
If you are looking for proof or an exact answer as to how/why/what/when for infinity then you are going to have quite a busy time. However if you do find it by next Wednesday (going on holiday for a few weeks after that) then give me a shout and I will apologise unreservedly
Sorry for going off topic but I hate the 'you are an idiot for believing in God ' view point. Extremist violence and hate is obviously not what it is about but people are allowed to have faith.
P.s. Oh and fingers crossed I will be forgiven for calling you a tw@
To anon @ 10:51 - I believe the 'flying spaghetti monster' answers this old chestnut more than adequately.
You do not need to prove the absence of something for which there is not only no reliable or repeatable experimental evidence, but not even a decent theory. I'll accept that there is a hypothesis, and that it has evolved continually since we as a species were complex enough to conceptualise, but that hypothesis has never qualified itself as a theory, because there are no testable predictions, and no prospect of any.
Believing in God is no less ridiculous than believing in Solipsism, or simulation theory - indeed at least simulation theory has a statistical argument on it's side, and the prospect of testability as science advances. God cannot be tested, by definition, if we identify an entity in a 'heaven' then by definition it isn't God.
Sorry for going even further off topic, but I cannot let God apologists go without at least a polite challenge to their intellectual credibility.
It's probably because I am envious of their smug certainty or something...
Reading all these septics ranting along the lines of "The server isn't in Pakistan, so they can go and get stuffed" and variations on a theme, anyone recall the chap living in his Mother's basement, here in the UK, hacking into servers in the US???
Oh, and to all those complaining about the amount of moderation, go read /. with your threshold set to -1...
Once you've washed your eyes, you can come back & thank Miss Bee.
If anyone ever had any doubts about the madness of religion, here is the proof. These people ought to be locked away, since they are at risk of harming themselves or others. Bread and water for 30 years, not a day less. Or, as Duke Nukem would say whilst lobbing in a grenade, "Let god sort 'em out".
"According to Pro Paskistani, petitioner Muhammad Azhar Sidiqque said he's waiting for the police to contact Interpol about making arrangements for the arrest of Facebook's owners and "Andy". The site also says that the Deputy Attorney General told the High Court that Pakistan’s United Nations representative has asked to escalate the issue in the UN General Assembly. "
Yeah, skippy...the civilized portions of the world will jump right on that...freedom suppressing idiot
"According to Pro Paskistani, petitioner Muhammad Azhar Sidiqque said he's waiting for the police to contact Interpol about making arrangements for the arrest of Facebook's owners and "Andy". The site also says that the Deputy Attorney General told the High Court that Pakistan’s United Nations representative has asked to escalate the issue in the UN General Assembly. "
Yeah, skippy...the civilized portions of the world will jump right on that...i
"So all you can say is that there's no proof either way."
The burden of proof lies with the claimant. In addition, following thousands of years of no corroborating evidence, a variety of evidentiary and logical principles (parsimony, razor, falsification, verification) can easily be applied and material theories put in place of this gibberish supporting the notion that an immaterial entity exists and interacts with the material, in direct contradiction with the principle of the conservation of energy.
Finally, and from a somewhat more theological perspective, what psychopath rescues some victims of natural disasters but not others? What psychopath creates billions of entities, puts them in a world of pain, and then expects them to worship it?
This is risible, childish nonsnse.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019