Cyber Jihad?

KrAzY3

KrAzY3

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
In truth I am suprised it took this long, but over the past week sites that are taking the "free speech" side of the Mohammad cartoon issue have come under attack.

For instance, both drawmohamme/ad sites have come under attack:
http://www.drawmohammed.com/ is suffering from a "flood" attack.
While http://www.drawmohammad.com/ has had to close down submissions because of other attacks as well (originating from Turkey). No suprise there as I said.

One reason I made my site: http://prophet.rydasrecords.com/ and kept it intentionally script free was because I knew this would happen. I figure, the most sites that take a stand the harder it will be for the radicals to wage "Cyber Jihad".

Now, why am I calling it that? Well, people that attacked drawhommad.com called it that themselves. But, once again to be expected. If they will respond with violence, attacks on websites are to be expected.

The one thing that has me wondering the extent of this "cyber jihad" is what I have seen on other non-related sites. For instance, about once a month a site I frequent encounters problems. This past week, several sites lost their entire databases and I have seen increased reports of worm warnings and the like. This might not be related, but I am wondering if this increase in activity can be a sign of a wider attack against what is seen as "western" sites in general.

Whether or not that is the case, what do people think about the possiblity of future wars to be waged on the internet? Obviously not replacing land wars, but in other respects. Allready, North Korea for instance has a full time group of "hackers" under their employment. With increased reliance on the internet, will we start to see a wave of "cyber terrorism" and the like as well?
 
There was a report I saw in the last day or two that said 500+ websites with the .dk (Denmark) domain had been attacked or hacked. Apparently this is the highest count every due to an international incident including the U.S. spy plane incident w/China (U.S. hackers taking it to Chinese sites.) and the beginnings of Iraqi Freedom.

Draw Mohammed is f'in hysterical and it's good to see they know what they're facing and will have it back up.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']There was a report I saw in the last day or two that said 500+ websites with the .dk (Denmark) domain had been attacked or hacked. Apparently this is the highest count every due to an international incident including the U.S. spy plane incident w/China (U.S. hackers taking it to Chinese sites.) and the beginnings of Iraqi Freedom.

Draw Mohammed is f'in hysterical and it's good to see they know what they're facing and will have it back up.[/QUOTE]

I've talked to webmasters from both sites, I'm pretty sure they're both dealing with the problems as best they can. Heavy scriptings can lead to a lot of vulnerabilities but they both seem to have a handle on things. I even had both link to my crappy site, heck they should attack my site while they are at it! Better to shut down a crappy site than good one :)

But yeah, thanks for the info. I suspected as much but I hadn't seen much data on it. I think more people need to stand up on the issue and make sure they can't think they're "winning". Anyway, may be people who felt this was no big deal will start to get the extent some people want to change our way of life. They're after your websites folks! Get it? Don't take it sitting down...
 
I know many people on this board will say "But PAD what if they lampooned Christ.".

Been there, done that, we've seen the crucifix in the piss.

There's something inherently funny and unholy about a revered "prophet" that marries a 6 year old and then beds her at 9. Can't say that though! Can't say this guy was a pedophile!

The cartoons that did though, yeah, they were funny.
 
Eh, not quite. You all can make fun of any religion until your faces turn blue. I don't care. However, given that at least three of the fandom pictures I clicked on that drawmohammed site involved little more than a picture of him fucking something, I'm a bit disappointed in the sophomoric level of creativity you all call "humor." I've seen more thought on YTMND.

As far as mohammed and his underage wife, well, you are aware that the age of marriagable people varies not only from culture to culture, but over time as well? While I'm certainly bothered by the notion of sexual relations with someone so young (and are you being precise on the ages, or merely eggagerating as per usual?), if it's no different from the norms of the time/culture, then it's not really a relevant point of mockery, isn't it?

I must say, however, I'm pleased to see that people are going to great lengths to not only continue to offend each respective religion (because let's face it, all of your beliefs about inherent religious superiority are at odds with their beliefs about inherent religious superiority here), but to feign outrage with each respective turn of the pen. Remember, be shocked when they do something in artistic retaliation! It's not what you expected, right?
 
The drawmuhammed site has a lot of offensive cartoons on it. Sites that are offensive often come under attack, it's nothing new. It's not "right", but it's hardly anything unique.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']As far as mohammed and his underage wife, well, you are aware that the age of marriagable people varies not only from culture to culture, but over time as well? While I'm certainly bothered by the notion of sexual relations with someone so young (and are you being precise on the ages, or merely eggagerating as per usual?), if it's no different from the norms of the time/culture, then it's not really a relevant point of mockery, isn't it?

I must say, however, I'm pleased to see that people are going to great lengths to not only continue to offend each respective religion (because let's face it, all of your beliefs about inherent religious superiority are at odds with their beliefs about inherent religious superiority here), but to feign outrage with each respective turn of the pen. Remember, be shocked when they do something in artistic retaliation! It's not what you expected, right?[/QUOTE]

The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept that the Holy Prophet married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.
Faith Freedom.org


Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

It's not an exaggeration.

Yes, you're right in saying that the age of women being married has varied greatly with societies and time. However use the basic tennant of Abrahmic derived religions, of which Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all descended from is that marriage is for the procreation of children, not pleasure. The Jews have a Bah Mitzvah for boys to welcome them to manhood and Bat Mitzvahs for girls becoming women at age 13. Generally the first such years of life where they may be able to procreate.

That being said the books of Abraham from which Islam is supposedly descended proscribed a minimum age and standard for marriage. There is nothing about Mohammed's actions that jive with the law handed down by prohpets that Islam itself recognizes.

This relationship alone is one of the top 3 reasons I personally think Mohammed is a false prophet and those that follow him are idolators.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It's not an exaggeration.[/quote]
Just making certain. I'm aware that, at 9 years of age, much less 6, procreation is impossible (unless she was in the .00001 or somesuch percentage of people who mature that early, but I wouldn't bet my 360 on it). It's also very true that sexuality is regarded as almost purely functional in the abrahamic faiths, so the point that he was a heretic not for consummating his marriage, but doing so, in all likelihood filly aware that she was too young to bear children, is valid (as you say below).

Yes, you're right in saying that the age of women being married has varied greatly with societies and time. However use the basic tennant of Abrahmic derived religions, of which Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all descended from is that marriage is for the procreation of children, not pleasure. The Jews have a Bah Mitzvah for boys to welcome them to manhood and Bat Mitzvahs for girls becoming women at age 13. Generally the first such years of life where they may be able to procreate.

That being said the books of Abraham from which Islam is supposedly descended proscribed a minimum age and standard for marriage. There is nothing about Mohammed's actions that jive with the law handed down by prohpets that Islam itself recognizes.
Click to expand...
Now the ol' testament has all the books of abraham, correct? So which book are we talking about?

This relationship alone is one of the top 3 reasons I personally think Mohammed is a false prophet and those that follow him are idolators.
Click to expand...
Well, from a religious critique standpoint, that's fine and well; this explanation belies the humor you find in goofy drawings of muhammad fucking an animal, or jerking off in the desert, however.
 
mykevermin, My picture has Mohammad having sex with something. But he's "raping" the free press, if people don't get the point then that is their fault. Apparently my stick figure is popular there for some odd reason. I suppose some people do get the point.

I've also seen another few pictures of him having sex, for instance one is Allah screwing Mohammed and then in turn Mohammed screwing a sheep which is repesentative of his followers (religions often use the sheep refference to their own followers). Once again that one makes a point.

Now, not all are ones I find reasonable, but most make a point beyond just trying to piss people off. I, for one vote for those and vote against the ones that are just there to insult people (although that in and of itself is a point). I even had the webmaster reset the votes on one of a pig screwing Mohammad, mainly because the author had obviously cheated in the ratings. People hadn't been giving it good ratings, as is the case with most of the images there just to offend. Heck, two I uploaded (my stick figure and the the "Islam the Tolerant") that are on the top rated page. Most people seem fond of ones that make a point. The rest? Freedom of expression all the way, some were made by just to piss people off and some make good points. The whole point of the site is not to stifle freedom of expression so, I say good for all of them. The right to offend and be offended is a great thing. Islam, as it is practiced by most people is highly offensive to me. Yet, I let them practice it in peace. That's called tolerance and that's something that they need to learn themselves.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']The drawmuhammed site has a lot of offensive cartoons on it. Sites that are offensive often come under attack, it's nothing new. It's not "right", but it's hardly anything unique.[/QUOTE]

As far as the sites coming under attack, nothing new but the scope of what is happening is. The attacks coincide with a high level of attacks in general both against sites in general but focused on Danish sites and sites dealing with the cartoon subject. It is another example of them trying to stifle free speech.
 
Do you think you could have put more thought into the message you wanted to convey, both in the image you present and the arguments you make?

The lack of subtlety in what you consider to be a "point" removes any concept of humor, because there's nothing to "get" about your cartoon. I don't see how any but a few would be dense enough to overlook your point, because you spell it out rather clearly. One can not understand your cartoon and feel clever for having done so.

Your work, both in visuals and in thought, could be done by the average sixth grader with MS Paint in five minutes. The only thing one needs to do what you did is to think that buttfucking is funny and hate islam.
 
The quran described her as very mature for her age. It is possible that she had reached puberty, 8 is usually consider the youngest a female will normally have her period, the average being 12-14 (but up to 16), depending on the individual, nutrition etc. Essentially 9 is unusual but not unheard of. And, in fact, most books, health sites etc. usually describe the younger normal age as 9.

That being said, most of what I've read indicates that while muslim scholars think she probably had reached puberty, there is no certainty as to whether she has, but there is also no certainty as to whether intercourse occured when she moved in. There are passages indicating she was treated differently (in ways a child would be) than the other wives. But muhammed stated that girls were to be considered women when they reached puberty, and it seems to be assumed that she had reached puberty at 9.
 
mykevermin, My picture has Mohammad having sex with something. But he's "raping" the free press, if people don't get the point then that is their fault. Apparently my stick figure is popular there for some odd reason. I suppose some people do get the point.
Click to expand...

A comic who makes racist jokes to point out the ridiculous of racism attract racist audiences. Regardless of your intention you are naive if you think anyone (or more than a few) will get the point you're conveying. You likely have the support of bigots, not the intellectuals you seem to claim.

But freedom of expression needs to be balanced with respect. Sure, it shouldn't be illegal, but speech such as this should not be encouraged. There's a difference between allowing offensive speech and going out of your way to foster it. If the protest was in response to outrage over racist cartoons about blacks you wouldn't have all these "drawaniger" websites popping up, and you wouldn't have this wave of support claiming that the paper was justified. The support is there because people just see the response from the "other" as the response of "savages" who don't know how to be civilized and that their beliefs are worthy of mockery.
 
Well, all my statements regarding my "work" was that A: It was meant to offend but B: It was also meant to make a point.

That was two-fold, if they are going to threaten the "real" artists let them threaten me as well. I even posted it on one forum under my real name even though for most things in the internet I do not. The point was I wasn't going to let the original artists be the only ones those barbarians are threatening to kill. Sure, threaten to kill me to you pieces of shit.

But, I did take care to insure that it did convey a point. No, of course it wasn't subtle, and it wasn't a poem or witty satire that someone has to be bright to figure out. It was intended for the most illiterate dumbass to be able to understand. Also, IT WAS MADE IN PAINT in 5 minutes.

As far as funny, no it wasn't funny. But just in case people didn't get it, once again for the idiots amongst us I labelled the "penis" as death threats, beatings, gunmen and kidnappings while the press was apologizing while being raped. Perhaps if I had any real artistic talent I would make make something much more artistically appealing and poignant. The only reason I reffered to it was to point out it was not only offensive, it was explaining what offended ME! Which was the point, the "raping" of the free press offends me highly, it was a response that is very easy to understand yet that conveyed my feelings and my support for the artists' right. I can't believe I am sitting here discussing something I labelled as offensive artistically and and in subject matter. You tried to dismiss most as just offensive and even if you think the point is too direct, it still goes beyond just trying to offend.

But, since that doesn't fit your fancy then I suppose the "Islam the Tolerant" one or the "stop we've run out of virgins" one would appeal more to your desire to see more typical satire. I'm looking at the main page, and I see may be 5 of the top ranked ones that are really just immature and offensive (which once again in this case is a point in and of itself. Yelling when told to be silent is a valid form of resistance). I see 8 others that make very valid points, like the "Take it easy, friends, afterall it's just a drawing made by an infidel dane..." one which is almost prophetic.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']A comic who makes racist jokes to point out the ridiculous of racism attract racist audiences. Regardless of your intention you are naive if you think anyone (or more than a few) will get the point you're conveying. You likely have the support of bigots, not the intellectuals you seem to claim.

But freedom of expression needs to be balanced with respect. Sure, it shouldn't be illegal, but speech such as this should not be encouraged. There's a difference between allowing offensive speech and going out of your way to foster it. If the protest was in response to outrage over racist cartoons about blacks you wouldn't have all these "drawaniger" websites popping up, and you wouldn't have this wave of support claiming that the paper was justified. The support is there because people just see the response from the "other" as the response of "savages" who don't know how to be civilized and that their beliefs are worthy of mockery.[/QUOTE]

Just a question Alonzo: are you also offended that there has been art in this country that depicted the Virgin Mary, for instance, splattered with dung? Or crosses dipped in urine? Would it also offend you even more that our own government paid for such "art" through the NEA? If so, would you join me in calling for the NEA to be abolished?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Just a question Alonzo: are you also offended that there has been art in this country that depicted the Virgin Mary, for instance, splattered with dung? Or crosses dipped in urine? Would it also offend you even more that our own government paid for such "art" through the NEA? If so, would you join me in calling for the NEA to be abolished?[/QUOTE]

I'm not offended, just as I'm not offended by the images ridiculing muhammed. But I think it's reasonable to be offended. If the NYT were to publish such art I would have no problem with groups protesting them and would think the NYT was out of line in publishing them. It's not that I'm saying they should be outraged, but that I find that outrage, if it occurs, legitimate if its peaceful.

But my opinion on the example you suggested would depend on the circumstances. I can only guess how the nea works since I know nothing about it other than it funds artists. But if the government makes selections on content (ie. they reject or accept not only on artistic qualitic but on content of the message as well) then I don't think they should fund things that are designed to attack any specific religion. If it was a more hands off approach, where funding isn't based on the type of message, then that's out of their hands. I would need to see the art in question but, unless its suggesting that modern christianity runs counter to the true teachings of christ, then it would seem to be art primarily for the purpose of attacking a *specific* religion. While I think attacks on minority groups need to be given closer attention, I also think attacks on the majority group should be based on content and not simply "they're christian" or "they're white", but instead the effects that has (ie. ban abortion, gay rights etc.). My opinion differs on whether the government is simply funding artists who meet such and such qualifications or certain talented artists in particular over other talented ones.

Though your last line shows you don't understand my point. I'm not joining you or them, but if the government decided to show support and approval for such drawings, like the newspaper did, then I think you have a legitimate reason to protest. There's a big leap between that and me being offended or joining you.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm not offended, just as I'm not offended by the images ridiculing muhammed. But I think it's reasonable to be offended. If the NYT were to publish such art I would have no problem with groups protesting them and would think the NYT was out of line in publishing them. It's not that I'm saying they should be outraged, but that I find that outrage, if it occurs, legitimate if its peaceful.

But my opinion on the example you suggested would depend on the circumstances. I can only guess how the nea works since I know nothing about it other than it funds artists. But if the government makes selections on content (ie. they reject or accept not only on artistic qualitic but on content of the message as well) then I don't think they should fund things that are designed to attack any specific religion. If it was a more hands off approach, where funding isn't based on the type of message, then that's out of their hands. I would need to see the art in question but, unless its suggesting that modern christianity runs counter to the true teachings of christ, then it would seem to be art primarily for the purpose of attacking a *specific* religion. While I think attacks on minority groups need to be given closer attention, I also think attacks on the majority group should be based on content and not simply "they're christian" or "they're white", but instead the effects that has (ie. ban abortion, gay rights etc.). My opinion differs on whether the government is simply funding artists who meet such and such qualifications or certain talented artists in particular over other talented ones.

Though your last line shows you don't understand my point. I'm not joining you or them, but if the government decided to show support and approval for such drawings, like the newspaper did, then I think you have a legitimate reason to protest. There's a big leap between that and me being offended or joining you.[/QUOTE]

Would it surprise you to learn that on the same day it refused to show the Mohammed cartoons The New York Times printed a picture of the Virgin Mary picture splattered with feces?

And you should want the NEA abolished regardless, because the government has no business funding the arts.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']And you should want the NEA abolished regardless, because the government has no business funding the arts.[/QUOTE]

Article I, Section 8 Consititution of the United States of America

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Link

Makes sense to me that it is one of the Federal government's ennumerated rights.

Welfare, SSI/FICA, food stamps, Medicaid/Medicare... nope, nowhere to be found in the Constitution. I see more Consititutional reasoning for the NEA than I do any of the above.

I hate to say it because I don't agree with who they fund but by golly, they should exist.
 
Well, in the end, those the painting is directed against is what determines how offensive it is. And the context in which they were presented also matters.

Looking online though there were protests against the urine cross one you mentioned earlier.
 
Just how many foreign embassies were firebombed, protestors killed in those protests 'zo?

Oh, wait, did Andres Serrano have to go into hiding because of death threats? Oh... were there Catholic Priests out there proclaiming edicts that he be put to death?

No?

STFU dumb ass.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Andres Serrano[/QUOTE]

Well, 'least you got that part right. Most people wrongly attribute "piss christ" to Robert Mapplethorpe (who was a photographer, but, hey, what's that matter?)/
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Just how many foreign embassies were firebombed, protestors killed in those protests 'zo?

Oh, wait, did Andres Serrano have to go into hiding because of death threats? Oh... were there Catholic Priests out there proclaiming edicts that he be put to death?

No?

STFU dumb ass.[/QUOTE]

Somebody needs a hug :grouphug:
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Article I, Section 8 Consititution of the United States of America

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Link

Makes sense to me that it is one of the Federal government's ennumerated rights.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry, PAD but art 1 sec 8 has nothing to do with publically funding of private artwork. It has to do with ascribing and protecting ownership of intellectual property for private profit, i.e. issuing patents.

We shouldn't have to pay some artist to paint the mona lisa, but we should guarantee his exclusive right to sell it's image in America for a period of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top