Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

'Anonymous' hacks Revolution Muslim for South Park Fattwa!!

page: 19
112
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by YehudasTheEnabler
Sorry i think that you misunderstand me,coming out with insults towards me says more about yourself than me,What you have said about me is incorrect.I can clearly see that some of what i have said has upset you,for this im sorry but im entitled to my views.If you actually knew me i doubt you would throw such accusations around.What have i professed for myself?you are entitled to have your views about me but are insults really called for?

edit-seems some people see were im coming from going by the stars on my posts,but then you are entitled to your view

[edit on 25-4-2010 by YehudasTheEnabler]


Bold part added by me.

So you are allowed to have your views even if they have upset someone, but the South Park guys can't have their views because it upsets some Muslim extremists. Your argument is falling apart at the seams.

Also i didn't really see any insults, only someone questioning your ideas. As for stars on your posts, well i don't see any on this page at the moment but i see plenty on the posts of those who disagree with you.


[edit on 25-4-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



Whilst i see your point is it just the exremists that will suffer?whilst my views are my own those of islam are not they range between a wide variety of people through many generations and cultures whilst some will just blow this off others will take it to heart.Its the fact that southpark has millions of viewers who will listen/watch this and find it acceptible.my view is simply that... my view.....islam is the view of millions.




posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric

...the only thing they did was to portray the so called Prophet Mohammad in a bear costume...


Exactly so! You raise an interesting point - since the alleged Mohammed was entirely encased in said bear suit, never so much as spoke for a voice recognition, how can we be sure that it was the real, actual, corporeal Mohammed in there to begin with? After all, there's no way to prove that it wasn't Bernie from "Weekend at Bernie's" and only CLAIMED to be Mohammed...

What if South Park actually threw a ringer, and the radicals took the bait?




posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
So I see this thread is still going on. And I guess I am not helping to kill this thread by paying attention, am I?

But anyway, I have a question: when does freedom of speech become freedom to torture?

There is a threshold their somewhere. I would say it is based upon the viewpoint of the person in pain, not the person doing the torturing.

Should people be allowed to verbally torture large groups of strangers, anonymously and with impunity?

If you think you are immune to this type of torture, I would disagree. The people responding to this thread are more susceptible to verbal torture than most people, I would imagine. I base this statement upon the overly indignant nature of most responses.

On a side note, I saw "BASEketball" last night on TV, starring Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

en.wikipedia.org...

It was one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen. I mean -- really over-the-top stupid. It actually changed my opinion of these guys from bad to worse. I think some people here will probably agree. Please look closely at what you are defending so passionately.

Don't bother responding to me on this thread. I won't be checking back here.

Good luck resolving things



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by YehudasTheEnabler
Do you class hacking into a site and changing its views to suit your own freespeech?


and



Treat others how You wish to be treated.


My dear Yehudas -

I can't speak for anyone else, but I view the hacking episode as an act of warfare on the cyber front. Not a threat, nor an attempt to quash free speech, but an overt act of self-defensive warfare, a basic natural right of all humans, an act of self defense.

The hack was done to strike a blow against quashing the free speech of the creators of South Park, and so, by extension, ALL of us, yourself included. You see, when a basic right of all humans comes under attack via veiled threats, then that basic right is under attack, not necessarily just the alleged target of the attack, but the right itself. A right which belongs to all, and so we ALL were under the threat.

If they silence South Park, they silence YOU, too.

My body carries scars garnered in fighting, ostensibly for the basic rights of people I didn't even know. I didn't do it for them, specifically, though. That's just what it looks like on the surface. My OWN motivations in the matter were defensive of the basic rights themselves, rights that applied to my friends, my family, myself. Even strangers, such as yourself.

When basic natural rights are under attack, all humanity is.

I find it mildly interesting, and somewhat ironic as applied to this debate, that you have chosen as a handle a name that has come down through history as belonging to one instrumental in quashing the free speech of one man, and by extension a small group of followers, 2000 years ago in a tiny Roman province in the middle east. One man who, by all accounts of the day, was perfectly capable of holding his own in a verbal debate, and who challenged the status quo. Those in power simply couldn't have that, and so they killed a man who had for the most part been using peaceful means of verbal sparring to make his point. That killing was initiated by a betrayal, also in an ostensibly peaceful manner, a betrayal delivered by a kiss. How much more peaceful could it have been?

Unfortunately, there were those of violent bent who used that peaceful betrayal to lay violent hands on the leader of a more or less peaceful reform movement, killing him, and scattering his followers into the underground.

The movement, and the free speech and exchange of ideas, was thereby quashed. For the moment. It seems not to have STAYED quashed, however.

The name of the man initiating and enabling this chain of events? Judas. Yehudas the Enabler.

How ironic.

For the second part, treating others as you would have yourself treated has a corollary in treating THEM as they have treated you, under the notion that this is the manner in which THEY prefer to be treated.

It's a two-way street.

By the way, that particular quote you use should properly be attributed to the individual your namesake betrayed all those years ago. Irony again, in that you would choose that particular name, yet repeatedly use that particular quote. No, it's not lost on me.

[edit on 2010/4/25 by nenothtu]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
ok here i go , first of all i didn't want to participate in this thread , but then i thought why not just put my views and thought just to let people here on ATS understand what prophet Mohammed is to me and to all muslims.

we as muslims BELIEVE that he is a messenger from GOD, him and all the other prophets that are even mentioned in the bible , the old and the new testament.

while i havent seen southpark for a long time , ever since my last visit to australia 3 years ago, so i don't know what that episode contained, nor do i want to know or watch.

in our religion its a taboo to picture the prophets for one reason and that is , they are so Holy to us because WE BELIEVE that they were chosen by GOD as messengers like ambassadors from him to the people of the earth, that's why we love them and feel offended when things like that happen.

but then again what can we do about it ? although we all live on a pale blue dot , but i do believe that there are borders between every country , and every country has its own laws , as well as its own morals.

i didn't post this to have a debate with any one , it's just my thought , and i thought i should share it with every body here on ATS.

but before i go i have one more thing to say , and that is , i thought free speech is some thing you talk about clearly and have a view point of it and defend it because that is every body's right , but never thought that offending and insulting someone elses belief was a free speech.

in advance thanx to those who agree with me , and for those who dont agree i say to them sorry if i disagree with you.

and again , in the end of every post i say this , sorry if my english is not that good


and peace



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
The “Radical” Muslim Group That Threatened South Park Creators Was Founded and Run by Joseph Cohen, a Former Israeli Radical Who Used to Live in a Settlement in the West Bank



willyloman.wordpress.com... l-who-used-to-live-in-a-settlement-in-the-west-bank/



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr UAE


but before i go i have one more thing to say , and that is , i thought free speech is some thing you talk about clearly and have a view point of it and defend it because that is every body's right , but never thought that offending and insulting someone elses belief was a free speech.

in advance thanx to those who agree with me , and for those who dont agree i say to them sorry if i disagree with you.

and again , in the end of every post i say this , sorry if my english is not that good


and peace


I applaud you my friend,what you state here is the truth.


Treat others how You wish to be treated.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr UAE
 


Well put, well thought out, well stated. There's nothing wrong with your english.

You are among those sorts of Muslims that I have defended in the past, and if more of your sort were to speak out, as you have done, the world would be a better place, the dialog would be far different that it is today.

In response to your take on free speech, I would try to enhance your viewpoint by referring to the inscription found around the wall inside the Dome of the Rock. That inscription, quoted directly from the Qur'an, is taken as offensive by some Christians. Should it be removed? Not at all. It's an example of the free expression of Islam that some others may find offensive, but it in no way threatens. It's a statement of perception, of belief, that stands on it's own. If some find it offensive, too bad. It is as it is.

I've yet to see calls for the removal of the Dome of the Rock based on that inscription. Likewise, in correlation, what we are discussing here is the call of some few people for sanctions based on the exposition of an idea that they find offensive, but which in no way was threatening.

For myself, I will stand until I fall against sanctions against Islam based solely on that inscription, just as I would stand until I fall against sanctions against the creators of South Park based solely on their expounded views. It matters not at all whether I agree with the views expressed in either case. What matters is the unfettered ability to express them, free from threat.

I hope that I have expressed myself on this matter in a way that you can understand, and perhaps take pause for thought. If I'm misunderstood, that would be entirely my fault, a failing of my abilities in getting my point across, not a reflection on yourself.

Salaam



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by YehudasTheEnabler
Do you class hacking into a site and changing its views to suit your own freespeech?


and



Treat others how You wish to be treated.


My dear Yehudas -

I can't speak for anyone else, but I view the hacking episode as an act of warfare on the cyber front. Not a threat, nor an attempt to quash free speech, but an overt act of self-defensive warfare, a basic natural right of all humans, an act of self defense.

The hack was done to strike a blow against quashing the free speech of the creators of South Park, and so, by extension, ALL of us, yourself included. You see, when a basic right of all humans comes under attack via veiled threats, then that basic right is under attack, not necessarily just the alleged target of the attack, but the right itself. A right which belongs to all, and so we ALL were under the threat.

If they silence South Park, they silence YOU, too.

My body carries scars garnered in fighting, ostensibly for the basic rights of people I didn't even know. I didn't do it for them, specifically, though. That's just what it looks like on the surface. My OWN motivations in the matter were defensive of the basic rights themselves, rights that applied to my friends, my family, myself. Even strangers, such as yourself.

When basic natural rights are under attack, all humanity is.

I find it mildly interesting, and somewhat ironic as applied to this debate, that you have chosen as a handle a name that has come down through history as belonging to one instrumental in quashing the free speech of one man, and by extension a small group of followers, 2000 years ago in a tiny Roman province in the middle east. One man who, by all accounts of the day, was perfectly capable of holding his own in a verbal debate, and who challenged the status quo. Those in power simply couldn't have that, and so they killed a man who had for the most part been using peaceful means of verbal sparring to make his point. That killing was initiated by a betrayal, also in an ostensibly peaceful manner, a betrayal delivered by a kiss. How much more peaceful could it have been?

Unfortunately, there were those of violent bent who used that peaceful betrayal to lay violent hands on the leader of a more or less peaceful reform movement, killing him, and scattering his followers into the underground.

The movement, and the free speech and exchange of ideas, was thereby quashed. For the moment. It seems not to have STAYED quashed, however.

The name of the man initiating and enabling this chain of events? Judas. Yehudas the Enabler.

How ironic.

For the second part, treating others as you would have yourself treated has a corollary in treating THEM as they have treated you, under the notion that this is the manner in which THEY prefer to be treated.

It's a two-way street.

By the way, that particular quote you use should properly be attributed to the individual your namesake betrayed all those years ago. Irony again, in that you would choose that particular name, yet repeatedly use that particular quote. No, it's not lost on me.

[edit on 2010/4/25 by nenothtu]


Was judas the betrayer?I wont start on that subject in this thread but thankyou for pointing out the irony of my tag,i didnt even think about it.


why didnt you explain "the enabler" part,shame you missed that out.

Treat others how You wish to be treated.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by YehudasTheEnabler

Was judas the betrayer? I wont start on that subject in this thread but thankyou for pointing out the irony of my tag,i didnt even think about it.


He has historically been named as such, but you are correct, this isn't the place to debate the finer points of that argument.



why didnt you explain "the enabler" part,shame you missed that out.


I did, here:


Originally posted by nenothtu

The name of the man initiating and enabling this chain of events? Judas. Yehudas the Enabler.



I bolded it so that you wouldn't miss it on this scan.




Treat others how You wish to be treated.



The irony never stops, I see.

I find it odd that, out of that entire post of mine, these are the only points you felt you could pick apart. You didn't address the points I made concerning free speech, this hack attack, or the nature of the current disagreement at all.

Who's tally box does that chalk mark go into?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by YehudasTheEnabler

Was judas the betrayer? I wont start on that subject in this thread but thankyou for pointing out the irony of my tag,i didnt even think about it.


He has historically been named as such, but you are correct, this isn't the place to debate the finer points of that argument.



why didnt you explain "the enabler" part,shame you missed that out.


I did, here:


Originally posted by nenothtu

The name of the man initiating and enabling this chain of events? Judas. Yehudas the Enabler.



I bolded it so that you wouldn't miss it on this scan.

you didnt really explain it.



Treat others how You wish to be treated.



The irony never stops, I see.

I find it odd that, out of that entire post of mine, these are the only points you felt you could pick apart. You didn't address the points I made concerning free speech, this hack attack, or the nature of the current disagreement at all.

Who's tally box does that chalk mark go into?


I wasnt picking them apart?merely thanking you,you know my views on this, its pointless keep going back and forth but i thankyou for your time and views,i also appreciate your manner and thankyou for mostly trying to be civil.


Treat others how You wish to be treated.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by YehudasTheEnabler

Originally posted by Dr UAE


but before i go i have one more thing to say , and that is , i thought free speech is some thing you talk about clearly and have a view point of it and defend it because that is every body's right , but never thought that offending and insulting someone elses belief was a free speech.

in advance thanx to those who agree with me , and for those who dont agree i say to them sorry if i disagree with you.
and again , in the end of every post i say this , sorry if my english is not that good

and peace

I applaud you my friend,what you state here is the truth.

Treat others how You wish to be treated.


The concept of free speech is based entirely around the idea that people will disagree with you. Entirely around the idea that people will have other beliefs than you do. How can anyone say they didn't think the idea of free speech was considered around offending someones belief is really not understanding the idea of free speech.

The Aryan brotherhood has much to say about everything. I don't agree with what they believe, but it is their right to believe and express whatever they choose, within the confines of legality, even if I find their belief offensive.

Why exactly would we need to define "Free speech" if everyone agreed with everyone?

Lastly, this is the best part of your whole response...


Originally posted by YehudasTheEnabler
i also appreciate your manner and thankyou for mostly trying to be civil.
Treat others how You wish to be treated.


The hypocrisy of your treat others, uncredited "quote" is by far the most entertaining part of your posts.

..Ex



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr UAE
ok here i go , first of all i didn't want to participate in this thread , but then i thought why not just put my views and thought just to let people here on ATS understand what prophet Mohammed is to me and to all muslims.


There may be some people here that don't know the outlines of Islam. Then again, I don't think they need to in order to have a point of view on the matter of free speech, which is what this thread is about.


Originally posted by Dr UAE
we as muslims BELIEVE that he is a messenger from GOD, him and all the other prophets that are even mentioned in the bible , the old and the new testament.

in our religion its a taboo to picture the prophets for one reason and that is , they are so Holy to us because WE BELIEVE that they were chosen by GOD as messengers like ambassadors from him to the people of the earth, that's why we love them and feel offended when things like that happen.

i thought free speech is some thing you talk about clearly and have a view point of it and defend it because that is every body's right , but never thought that offending and insulting someone elses belief was a free speech.


Personally, I don't care whether you believe in pink elephants or a god named Allah. As most Muslims, in fact as most Christians too and most evangelists of all kinds, you feel that if only you explain your religion to me, I will understand and accept how logical and wonderful it is. What you don't realize is that you're born into a paradigm that only makes sense to those that have been indoctrinated with it. Religion is kind of like a language, which is why Christianity doesn't make sense to you, and Islam doesn't make sense to most Christians.

It doesn't matter how much you love your God or his supposed messenger, it's not a matter of to what extent you consider him holy and untouchable.

Oh, you love him that much? And you're that offended if someone make fun of it? OK, then let's have free speech except when it comes to Islam? The fact that you think that you can get through with a message like that in a free speech society shows that you haven't understood what it's all about.

Free speech stands down to no god, yours included. It doesn't make sense to you but it makes sense to me.

Now, if you want people to understand and respect your religion, and in itself it is a good thing that we all seed understanding between each other through dialogue, then I suggest that you go to your twisted, brainwashed brethren the Taliban up in the Pakistani mountains and explain to them that it is terribly wrong to blow up other religions' holy shrines, such as the giant buddhas of Bamyan, WHICH HAD AS MUCH RIGHT TO EXIST AS YOUR HOLY BLACK STONE IN THE KA'BA, and I also suggest that scoot off to Iraq and tell your Sunni brethren there to stop blowing up Shiite holy shrines, which has been done numerous times.

Then when you've cleaned up your own backyard, you can always come back with more lessons on respecting other people's religions.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


What a discussion lol

Let me break it down for you:




We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show," the posting said. A photo of van Gogh's body lying in the street was included with the original posting, which has been unavailable to some Web users since news of the item broke earlier this week. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.


Funnily, if you read that statement, which the whole discussion is about, you will find out that it is quiet self explanatory..

You support freedom of speech, right?
As you said:



Free speech is not something that should be hindered by the threat of violence.


Now read the Revolution Muslim's statement above, then read your statement below.. You agree to free speech, and yet when free speech is presented to you, which is not on your side, you stick your head under the sand..

As you said yourself:


I agree fully that there are people who will pursue violence if insulted. However i fail to see your point. Just because people exist who will be violent when insulted, does that mean we must all make sure to not voice any opinion that could be considered insulting in case it causes a violent incident?

Here you agree with me and Revolution Muslim website.. That people do pursue violence if insulted.. And now go back to Revolution Muslim's statement and read it again..


Let me give you the same Dummies guide as deenuu:

1. Adam puts his finger on fire.
2. Adam burns his finger.

3. Joe knows Adam put his finger on fire, and also knows he got burned.
4. Joe puts his finger on fire.
5. Joe burns.
6. Joe says: "I didn't know it was gonna burn".
5. oozyism said: "I told you and you hacked my website".

Read 1 - 6 - 5 over and over again until you understand what the discussion is about..

The discussion in regards is done and finished, we don't need to argue no more..





Now let's focus on the boundaries of free speech..



Words do hurt people indeed, but most adults learn to get over such things.


OK, so why don't adults get over physical pain? If they are adult enough to get over emotional pain (which lasts longer than physical), then surely physical pain should be easy for them to get over as well..

Here is one of your statements which breaks everything down for us:


There should be boundaries and those are easy to define. You can say and do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt anyone, or call for anyone to be harmed.

What ever you like as long as you don't hurt anyone.. Words do hurt people and I have already made my point.. This is a dead discussion, let's see if you can revive it for us..





[edit on 26-4-2010 by oozyism]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Saying others may take action is a threat.

It's just worded a little different so they won't get into trouble, Duh!

They deserve every hack they get.

They are 100% hypocrites.

They think they are entitled to freedom of speech, yet they wish to deny that right to anyone else.

I thank anonymous for their good deed.


I love this kind of hypocrisy on ATS, and why I starred the guy above you and not you.

They're entitled to freedom of speech, and once they exercise it. If you disagree, they are entitled to being backed to stifle their freedom of speech?

And they're the hypocrites?

[edit on 23-4-2010 by mryanbrown]
If it was just hate speech, then I would agree with you, but it's not. I'm pretty sure threats aren't protected under free speech.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by technical difficulties]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 





The concept of free speech is based entirely around the idea that people will disagree with you. Entirely around the idea that people will have other beliefs than you do. How can anyone say they didn't think the idea of free speech was considered around offending someones belief is really not understanding the idea of free speech.

That is very much true..

I have a question though, what is free speech good for? What is its objectives? How is it suppose to make a society better?

It seems to me that free speech is turning into a political slogan.. America doesn't have free speech! Europe doesn't have free speech! Are you kidding me lol.. How can you have free speech, then add hate speech on top of it.. That means you are not allowed to speak freely, which is not free speech..

Another political slogan is freedom in general hence "they don't like our freedom".. Ohh god, what freedom are you talking about? You have laws which governs your life, that is not freedom you dreamers..

Yes you can live in the American dream and tell me you have the right to free speech, but we all know it is just a dream..



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
To those saying no threat was involved, this is basically what the Islamic group said:



They said bad things can happen and posted the personal info (addresses, etc.) of those who stepped on their fragile little toes.

Is that a direct threat? No, but it is an implied threat, and one that was meant to intimidate someone into giving up their right to Free Speech.

What they did was essentially flash their gats, throw up some gang signs and say "yo, !@#$ can happen, homie."

I'm using a Gangsta Rap song to illustrate my point because it's the best medium available to describe how these people are acting: like a bunch of fourteen year old Al Capone wannabes.

$0.02

TheAssoc.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


Damn seems i really upset you,i apologise if i hit a nerve.

I didnt join the thread just to flame/abuse people,what your doing is on the verge of verbal bullying.



[edit on 26-4-2010 by YehudasTheEnabler]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
It is my understanding that images of Muhammad are not used because it was his will that the writings of the Qur'an be the central pillar of Islam and not a human figurehead or leader. He stated he didn't want to be deified and that the actual word of God, and not him, is the true focus of the religion.

Whenever Muhammad has been represented in pieces of Islamic art he is always fully covered up (in cloth) or hinted towards as oppose to being explicitly represented.

Of course, like many religions, through the years the sentiment of the original works has been skewed or altered to represent political movements of the age and this occasion is no different from any other. When people who study Islam speak of Muhammad they often say 'Peace be upon him' afterwards by way of reverse and thanks for his bringing the Qur'an to them. Whilst this tradition has always been the way for prophets Muhammad stated that, quite unusually for religions of that time, there should be nothing but the word of God to praise - something that is forgotten by many of the sects of the Muslim community.

As I started with, this is only my understanding - but I did quite a bit of research on the whole thing and so suppose it is worth something.

As for the South Park piece, sure it's irreverent, sure it's of questionable taste and sure it'll upset a lot of people - but that's South Park. In this case no actually showing any of Muhammad under the costume is in keeping with Islamic traditions of keeping his presence minimal but also mocking/humorous due to the comedic representation of a bear costume.

As for publishing addresses and potentially invoking violence upon people similar to that which happened in Amsterdam in 2004 - Not a smart move.

It's not often I see my atheistic friend Thunderf00t get upset to the point of seething anger about much, but this got some of that out of him. have a peek at his response to the whole sordid affair.


-m0r



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
When you stand up for freedom the first person you stand for is your enemy.

When you scream freedom of speech, you must realize your screaming for the person who wants to slander you or accost you.

Now this being said, I am out


Namaste





new topics

top topics



 
112
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join