Justice Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Fine. Don't draw something else. Die for that noble cause. I'm not the one that will be killing them for it though, so quit trying to demonize me. Victim blaming ? that's so 90's Freedom of speech (dress) is costly. Offend somebody dress provocatively and you might get hurt raped. People have been killed raped for far less offenses. Do I condone it? Absolutely not. Draw wear something else. If I walked down the block of a neighborhood with a sign hanging around my neck saying, "I hate n*****s love sex", and got killed raped for it, most people would say I deserved it. What's the difference? Don't go to prison because you just might get ass-raped. Let's not talk about rape, okay, that **** happens here on the regular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Victim blaming ? that's so 90's Freedom of speech (dress) is costly. Offend somebody dress provocatively and you might get hurt raped. People have been killed raped for far less offenses. Do I condone it? Absolutely not. Draw wear something else. If I walked down the block of a neighborhood with a sign hanging around my neck saying, "I hate n*****s love sex", and got killed raped for it, most people would say I deserved it. What's the difference? To be fair, most Muslims would agree with your modified statement. Then they'd stone the woman after the fact for being raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 To be fair, most Muslims would agree with your modified statement. Then they'd stone the woman after the fact for being raped. And according to the teachings of Islam they will be punished for it by God. Just because they do it doesn't make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 And according to the teachings of Islam they will be punished for it by God. Just because they do it doesn't make it right. Not if she was married. If she was married and was raped, Sharia law requires that she be stoned to death. If she was unmarried, then she must only be whipped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Freedom of speech is costly. Offend somebody and you might get hurt. People have been killed for far less offenses. Do I condone it? Absolutely not. Draw something else. If I walked down the block of a black neighborhood with a sign hanging around my neck saying, "I hate n*****s", and got killed for it, most people would say I deserved it. What's the difference? Yea it's totally the same. Mad you didn't get to pop a cap in one of those frenchies ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Yea it's totally the same. Mad you didn't get to pop a cap in one of those frenchies ? In all fairness, deep down, we're all a bit upset that we didn't get to "pop a cap in one of those frenchies", because Frech People. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Not if she was married. If she was married and was raped, Sharia law requires that she be stoned to death. If she was unmarried, then she must only be whipped. Most Muslims don't follow Sharia law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Most Muslims don't follow Sharia law. My assumption was that we were discussing Muslims in and from the Middle East and Northern Africa. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ "Support for making sharia the official law of the land varies significantly across the six major regions included in the study. In countries across South Asia, Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East-North Africa region most favor making sharia their country’s official legal code. By contrast, only a minority of Muslims across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe want sharia to be the official law of the land. In South Asia, high percentages in all the countries surveyed support making sharia the official law, including nearly universal support among Muslims in Afghanistan (99%). More than eight-in-ten Muslims in Pakistan (84%) and Bangladesh (82%) also hold this view. The percentage of Muslims who say they favor making Islamic law the official law in their country is nearly as high across the Southeast Asian countries surveyed (86% in Malaysia, 77% in Thailand and 72% in Indonesia).15 In sub-Saharan Africa, at least half of Muslims in most countries surveyed say they favor making sharia the official law of the land, including more than seven-in-ten in Niger (86%), Djibouti (82%), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (74%) and Nigeria (71%). Support for sharia as the official law of the land also is widespread among Muslims in the Middle East-North Africa region – especially in Iraq (91%) and the Palestinian territories (89%). Only in Lebanon does opinion lean in the opposite direction: 29% of Lebanese Muslims favor making sharia the law of the land, while 66% oppose it. Support for making sharia the official legal code of the country is relatively weak across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe. Fewer than half of Muslims in all the countries surveyed in these regions favor making sharia their country’s official law. Support for sharia as the law of the land is greatest in Russia (42%); respondents in Russia were asked if sharia should be made the official law in the country’s ethnic-Muslim republics. Elsewhere in Central Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe, about one-in-three or fewer say sharia should be made the law of the land, including just 10% in Kazakhstan and 8% in Azerbaijan." Edited January 13, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 My assumption was that we were discussing Muslims in and from the Middle East and Northern Africa. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ "Support for making sharia the official law of the land varies significantly across the six major regions included in the study. In countries across South Asia, Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East-North Africa region most favor making sharia their country’s official legal code. By contrast, only a minority of Muslims across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe want sharia to be the official law of the land. In South Asia, high percentages in all the countries surveyed support making sharia the official law, including nearly universal support among Muslims in Afghanistan (99%). More than eight-in-ten Muslims in Pakistan (84%) and Bangladesh (82%) also hold this view. The percentage of Muslims who say they favor making Islamic law the official law in their country is nearly as high across the Southeast Asian countries surveyed (86% in Malaysia, 77% in Thailand and 72% in Indonesia).15 In sub-Saharan Africa, at least half of Muslims in most countries surveyed say they favor making sharia the official law of the land, including more than seven-in-ten in Niger (86%), Djibouti (82%), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (74%) and Nigeria (71%). Support for sharia as the official law of the land also is widespread among Muslims in the Middle East-North Africa region – especially in Iraq (91%) and the Palestinian territories (89%). Only in Lebanon does opinion lean in the opposite direction: 29% of Lebanese Muslims favor making sharia the law of the land, while 66% oppose it. Support for making sharia the official legal code of the country is relatively weak across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe. Fewer than half of Muslims in all the countries surveyed in these regions favor making sharia their country’s official law. Support for sharia as the law of the land is greatest in Russia (42%); respondents in Russia were asked if sharia should be made the official law in the country’s ethnic-Muslim republics. Elsewhere in Central Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe, about one-in-three or fewer say sharia should be made the law of the land, including just 10% in Kazakhstan and 8% in Azerbaijan." You're cherry-picking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 You're cherry-picking. How so? Are we not talking about Muslims in and from the Middle East and Northern Africa? Does my link not address that in a comprehensive way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 My assumption was that we were discussing Muslims in and from the Middle East and Northern Africa. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ "Support for making sharia the official law of the land varies significantly across the six major regions included in the study. In countries across South Asia, Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East-North Africa region most favor making sharia their country’s official legal code. By contrast, only a minority of Muslims across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe want sharia to be the official law of the land. In South Asia, high percentages in all the countries surveyed support making sharia the official law, including nearly universal support among Muslims in Afghanistan (99%). More than eight-in-ten Muslims in Pakistan (84%) and Bangladesh (82%) also hold this view. The percentage of Muslims who say they favor making Islamic law the official law in their country is nearly as high across the Southeast Asian countries surveyed (86% in Malaysia, 77% in Thailand and 72% in Indonesia).15 In sub-Saharan Africa, at least half of Muslims in most countries surveyed say they favor making sharia the official law of the land, including more than seven-in-ten in Niger (86%), Djibouti (82%), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (74%) and Nigeria (71%). Support for sharia as the official law of the land also is widespread among Muslims in the Middle East-North Africa region – especially in Iraq (91%) and the Palestinian territories (89%). Only in Lebanon does opinion lean in the opposite direction: 29% of Lebanese Muslims favor making sharia the law of the land, while 66% oppose it. Support for making sharia the official legal code of the country is relatively weak across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe. Fewer than half of Muslims in all the countries surveyed in these regions favor making sharia their country’s official law. Support for sharia as the law of the land is greatest in Russia (42%); respondents in Russia were asked if sharia should be made the official law in the country’s ethnic-Muslim republics. Elsewhere in Central Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe, about one-in-three or fewer say sharia should be made the law of the land, including just 10% in Kazakhstan and 8% in Azerbaijan." 91% in Iraq??? What does that say about "Mission Accomplished"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 This is why nothing will change until Islam goes through its Enlightenment, and the silent majority has had enough. The question is how many people will die until it gets there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 91% in Iraq??? What does that say about "Mission Accomplished"? Is says nothing at all about "Mission accomplished". Are you saying that you believe our mission in Iraq was to put an end to Sharia law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Are you saying that you believe our mission in Iraq was to put an end to Sharia law? Yes it was "George Bush, the last Crusade" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Mayor of Rotterdam FTW http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2907941/Moroccan-born-mayor-Rotterdam-tells-fellow-Muslims-not-appreciate-freedoms-living-West-pack-bags-f-live-TV.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Freedom of speech is costly. Offend somebody and you might get hurt. People have been killed for far less offenses. Do I condone it? Absolutely not. Draw something else. If I walked down the block of a black neighborhood with a sign hanging around my neck saying, "I hate n*****s", and got killed for it, most people would say I deserved it. What's the difference? Edited January 14, 2015 by Nanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Anonymous isn't too happy about this. I am actually more intimidated by these guys then I am Obama/Holder and their US Military. They can actually get things done. You should be. Anon is the real deal. Well, the "oldfags" are. I am fully aware of the skill sets they possess. I have little to do with them. But, I am aware of them. If you work in elite IT, you are working with and around Anon people, no matter what. Thus, you have a little to do with them by default. A little does not mean nothing. Thus, the question is: whether you are observant enough to see the little, and, whether you are good enough keep that little separate from whatever they are doing. What are they gonna do? DDoS Sony's network in protest? Hehe...that's exactly what they want. This way, when they do pull off a huge exploit, nobody believes it was them. They love to attract "newfags" == stooges, script kids, etc. all of whom run around pretending they are Anonymous, because for them, it's about being cool. They serve a dual purpose: propagate the Anon mystique by running their mouths all over the internet(all while being tracked), and later, serving as a defense shield. Meanwhile, real Anonymous is the antithesis of being cool. Real Anonymous is about the work, because any elite IT person is only about the work. Then, when it's time, the "cool" Anonymous kid gets his door kicked down by the Feds, not realizing that it was his machine that was used to perform the hack, or more likely, one part of it. How? That script he downloaded from that "cool" Anon site, and used to hack his buddy's Facebook account(tee hee)? That had a few extra lines of code in it. A script kid, by definition, doesn't have the skills to even consider that possibility, never mind reviewing the source code. Hence, they serve as the perfect defensive shield. Somebody gets arrested, the authorities get their "bust" for the media(and Bill O'Reilly gets to have his victory parade ). But, chances are we are talking about a teenager, so they probably get off easy. And, real Anon, untouched, begins planning it's next exploit. You want to know what they will do? How about destroy a few suspect Middle Eastern bank's entire systems and their backups, with 15 little Johnny script kids around the world getting the blame? They have tracked down a lot of people and done far more then people realize. Which is they way they want it. The only opinions they care about are each other's. That's the fundamental flaw in most people's understanding of Anonymous. They are about the work they are doing, only. When it's done, they are too. They are not terrorists, or whatever, because Anon has nothing to do with terror. They fight for freedom in the absolute. Essentially they are strict Constitutionalists and Libertarians. There is no nuance. Free speech means it, 100%. So does Free Knowledge. So does Internet Freedom, in all its forms. Thus, they don't seek attention. This is not some ego trip, there is no grandiose manifesto, or power seeking here. There is no charismatic leader who goes on 60 Minutes and plays celebrity/romantic hero. They pick targets, publicly, but carefully, warn them to cease their bad behavior, and, if they don't, they attack. It's all very professional, and, since we are talking about elite IT people, what else should we expect? And that's the thing: the reason that we don't have real internet taxation/censorship? Fear. Right now, Anonymous is on the other side of a line I don't cross. But, if the leftists ever get away with their net neutrality/tax/censorship agenda? They'd be moving that line, and putting me, and a whole lot of other people, on Anon's side of it. All of us, working together, is a war that the they can never hope to win. We'd destroy not only the Federal apparatus used to implement such douchebaggery, we'd also destroy the means to ever impose it again. They'd be lucky to emerge with a single networked device still intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 A perfect depiction of our president who is so blindly supported cheered by the gatorman's of the world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) You should be. Anon is the real deal. Well, the "oldfags" are. I am fully aware of the skill sets they possess. I have little to do with them. But, I am aware of them. If you work in elite IT, you are working with and around Anon people, no matter what. Thus, you have a little to do with them by default. A little does not mean nothing. Thus, the question is: whether you are observant enough to see the little, and, whether you are good enough keep that little separate from whatever they are doing. Hehe...that's exactly what they want. This way, when they do pull off a huge exploit, nobody believes it was them. They love to attract "newfags" == stooges, script kids, etc. all of whom run around pretending they are Anonymous, because for them, it's about being cool. They serve a dual purpose: propagate the Anon mystique by running their mouths all over the internet(all while being tracked), and later, serving as a defense shield. Meanwhile, real Anonymous is the antithesis of being cool. Real Anonymous is about the work, because any elite IT person is only about the work. Then, when it's time, the "cool" Anonymous kid gets his door kicked down by the Feds, not realizing that it was his machine that was used to perform the hack, or more likely, one part of it. How? That script he downloaded from that "cool" Anon site, and used to hack his buddy's Facebook account(tee hee)? That had a few extra lines of code in it. A script kid, by definition, doesn't have the skills to even consider that possibility, never mind reviewing the source code. Hence, they serve as the perfect defensive shield. Somebody gets arrested, the authorities get their "bust" for the media(and Bill O'Reilly gets to have his victory parade ). But, chances are we are talking about a teenager, so they probably get off easy. And, real Anon, untouched, begins planning it's next exploit. You want to know what they will do? How about destroy a few suspect Middle Eastern bank's entire systems and their backups, with 15 little Johnny script kids around the world getting the blame? Which is they way they want it. The only opinions they care about are each other's. That's the fundamental flaw in most people's understanding of Anonymous. They are about the work they are doing, only. When it's done, they are too. They are not terrorists, or whatever, because Anon has nothing to do with terror. They fight for freedom in the absolute. Essentially they are strict Constitutionalists and Libertarians. There is no nuance. Free speech means it, 100%. So does Free Knowledge. So does Internet Freedom, in all its forms. Thus, they don't seek attention. This is not some ego trip, there is no grandiose manifesto, or power seeking here. There is no charismatic leader who goes on 60 Minutes and plays celebrity/romantic hero. They pick targets, publicly, but carefully, warn them to cease their bad behavior, and, if they don't, they attack. It's all very professional, and, since we are talking about elite IT people, what else should we expect? And that's the thing: the reason that we don't have real internet taxation/censorship? Fear. Right now, Anonymous is on the other side of a line I don't cross. But, if the leftists ever get away with their net neutrality/tax/censorship agenda? They'd be moving that line, and putting me, and a whole lot of other people, on Anon's side of it. All of us, working together, is a war that the they can never hope to win. We'd destroy not only the Federal apparatus used to implement such douchebaggery, we'd also destroy the means to ever impose it again. They'd be lucky to emerge with a single networked device still intact. nerd BTW. Since youre in IT. Can you get me Google Ultra? Please? Edited January 14, 2015 by jboyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Mayor of Rotterdam FTW http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2907941/Moroccan-born-mayor-Rotterdam-tells-fellow-Muslims-not-appreciate-freedoms-living-West-pack-bags-f-live-TV.html Why can't WE have a leader like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts