Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:27AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the 1+1=blasphemy dept.

Newsweek reports that ISIS has announced a new curriculum banning the study of math for students in areas of Iraq and Syria it controls. Also banned will be the teaching of music, social studies (especially anything about elections or democracy), and sports. Books cannot include any reference to evolution and teachers must say that the laws of physics and chemistry "are due to Allah's rules and laws." Students will instead learn all about "belonging to Islam," and how to "denounce infidelity and infidels." Teachers who break the rules "will be punished," according to fliers posted in ISIS-controlled territory.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:32AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:32AM (#94863)

    1/3 of USA agrees...

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by marcello_dl on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:37AM

    by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:37AM (#94865)

    I know a troll when I see one, and ISIS are trolling. Featuring serious consequences, unfunny trolling but still. The digits we use come from arabs, FFS.

    When ISIS are done, people in ex ISIS land will cut your throat if you barely mention religion, which is IMHO the point of the whole exercise.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by dublet on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:52AM

      by dublet (2994) on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:52AM (#94872)

      Actually "Arabic" numerals as we call them are of Babylonian origin [wikipedia.org], which in turn borrowed heavily from the Indian Brahmi numerals [wikipedia.org].

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by tibman on Thursday September 18 2014, @02:19PM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 18 2014, @02:19PM (#94990)

        Babylon is in south/central Iraq. Well, the ruins of it anyways. I have been there : )

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:54AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:54AM (#94873)

      Not trolling. It's quite clear that Islam wants nothing more than to take the world back 1,000 years or so - this theme is repeated over and over again from the Taliban to IS. Women are to be treated as property, men should be kept stupid and turned into good little fanatics willing to die for the cause. And kids of both genders exist to be raped because it's ok if you marry them afterwards even if they are 6 or if you are an imam. This is islam.

      • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:23AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:23AM (#94883)

        s/Islam/islamists/g

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by zafiro17 on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:59AM

          by zafiro17 (234) on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:59AM (#94927) Homepage

          Yes, thank you. Let's make a distinction between radical Islam and the others, please. Most of the Islamic world is peaceful and pleasant - visit Indonesia and Senegal, for starters, two countries with a reputation for tolerance that exceeds the average (there are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions everywhere).

          As for stupid ISIS policies, assuming this is for real, it is going to be self-limiting and ultimately self-defeating. There is no cure for stupidity, but as the economies tank in ISIS-controlled areas, the people will rise up and throw those ISIS nutsacks down the well where they belong.

          --
          Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by weeds on Thursday September 18 2014, @01:09PM

            by weeds (611) on Thursday September 18 2014, @01:09PM (#94946) Journal

            Let's make a distinction between radical Islam and the others

            That sounds good and all but no, the distinction has to be made by them, not by us. When all of the "peaceful and pleasant" Islamic world joins (or leads) the fight against the radical factions, then the distinction will be obvious.

            • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday September 18 2014, @02:15PM

              by Thexalon (636) on Thursday September 18 2014, @02:15PM (#94986)

              When all of the "peaceful and pleasant" Islamic world joins (or leads) the fight against the radical factions, then the distinction will be obvious.

              Well, then you'll be pleased to know that the nations of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, UAE, Yemen, Iraq (for whatever that government is worth), and Kuwait are generally US allies in the fight against the radical factions. Even Iran is thinking of getting on board against ISIL. The current governments of Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco are to varying degrees friendly or allied with Western powers on this issue (I'm leaving out Libya because their post-Qaddafi situation is complicated at best).

              So yes, it's safe to say that the vast majority of the Islamic world is not supportive of the radical Islamist groups.

              --
              The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
              • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:16PM

                by Geotti (1146) on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:16PM (#95043) Journal

                AFAIK Syria would like to help too, but some interest group(s) are instead financing rebel troops, which might turn out to be on the side of ISIL after all.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 19 2014, @01:00AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 19 2014, @01:00AM (#95306)

                Well, then you'll be pleased to know that the nations of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, UAE, Yemen, Iraq (for whatever that government is worth), and Kuwait are generally US allies in the fight against the radical factions.

                And you will be not so pleased to know that much of their support will be in the form of allowing US military personnel to be stationed at bases on their land, provide fly-over rights, logistical support, a (somewhat tepid) moral support in the form of tut-tutting their extremist co-religionists, and not much more. Actually joining in the fight? Not so much. :-(

            • (Score: 2) by CRCulver on Thursday September 18 2014, @02:33PM

              by CRCulver (4390) on Thursday September 18 2014, @02:33PM (#94995) Homepage

              When all of the "peaceful and pleasant" Islamic world joins (or leads) the fight against the radical factions, then the distinction will be obvious.

              They have been. If you are unaware of this, the fault is yours. Central Asian Muslim bodies (usually closely entwined with secular authoritarian leaders who don't want the unstability that religious fundamentalism brings) have taken great pains to turn their followers away from radical interpretations of Islam. Those states also called for armed action against the Taliban. Groups like Ismailis and Ahmadis, who suffer violence and other forms of persecution from fundamentalists, have been speaking out for decades against Islamism in media here and abroad.

              • (Score: 1) by turgid on Thursday September 18 2014, @06:58PM

                by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 18 2014, @06:58PM (#95141) Journal

                Here in the UK the media have been pretty bad at reporting on-goings. However, today the Guardian has a piece [theguardian.com] about British Muslims speaking out against the atrocities of IS/ISIS/ISIL.

                The is an absurd meme going about in the UK just now that "all Muslims" believe in IS/The Caliphate and Islamism/Islamofascism and that they're all waiting to pounce on us, chopping off heads, crucifying non-believers and claiming the UK for the Caliphate. It has given rise to some very ugly right wing extremism [bbc.co.uk],

                --
                Don't let Righty keep you down.
            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:33PM

              by Tork (3914) on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:33PM (#95056)
              Ah yes, the classic "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" debate tactic. Anything to keep our enemies nice and easy to recognize, right?
              --
              Slashdolt Logic: "23 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @07:18PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @07:18PM (#95154)

              When all of the "peaceful and pleasant" Islamic world joins (or leads) the fight against the radical factions, then the distinction will be obvious.

              Here's a couple of thousand denunciations by muslim leaders and institutions who have been denouncing islamic extremists for years. [muhajabah.com]

              ISIL is a local phenomenon, not much different from hundreds of other groups of violent fascists that have come before around the world. That they wear the uniform of islamic extremism doesn't say anything about islam, just that they are yet another group of extremists. Focus on the extremism and you'll get understanding, focus on the religion and you'll just wander off into the weeds.

              It really isn't the job of all regular muslims to fight ISIL any more than it was job of all regular atheists to fight the Khmer Rouge.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @01:37PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @01:37PM (#94960)
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:23PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:23PM (#95049)

              Right, let's radicalize the other 80%.. What a cunt.

            • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Thursday September 18 2014, @05:59PM

              by SlimmPickens (1056) on Thursday September 18 2014, @05:59PM (#95098)

              Moderates don't matter.

              I believe she's wrong, I find it hard to believe many those stats, but it is thought provoking.

              I note that nearly all the examples are pre-television.

              • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday September 19 2014, @10:39AM

                by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday September 19 2014, @10:39AM (#95418) Journal

                What's more, she is wrong when she says that the peaceful Germans in WWII were irrelevant, the peaceful Japanese and Russians etc were irrelevant:

                1 - In all of the examples she gave, there were resistance movements and people working against the tyranny of their governments. They played a part in the downfall of the regimes they opposed. Many of them were killed and tortured for their commitment and bravery. They were not irrelevant.

                2 - When the dust settles and the war is over and it's time to work out how to move forward, who do you turn to in order to rebuild the nation under more new ideals? How do you think Japan and Germany were able to become peaceful and productive countries after 1945/6? That's right, the peaceful majority. You need to keep them on your side and to give them the support and respect they deserve, not brush them off as "irrelevant".[1]

                3 - All the examples she gave were nations. Islam is not a nation. It has no borders, no central government. It's an idea. The only way you can attack an idea is with other ideas. If we are to kill this idea of "destroy the infidels", we need a better-but-compatible idea to replace it. Who is currently holding all the ideas that represent the best compromise between western ideals and Islamic militants? That's right, the Islamic moderates. They are not irrelevant.

                4 - I fully expected the Youtube link to be a "Four Lions" reference. If you haven't seen that film, go watch it.

                [1] Except we don't do war like that any more: We don't rebuild afterwards, it's just blunder on in killing randomly with no objective other than blowing shit up and then arbitrarily declare "mission accomplished" and leave them to come back for the sequel, more bitter and fucked up than ever before.

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by keplr on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:00PM

            by keplr (2104) on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:00PM (#95037) Journal

            The problem with fundamentalist Islam, are Islam's fundamentals. It's hard to point out exactly where these people are going astray. They are presenting and implementing a very plausible version of the faith. Their actions are easy to justify, right from reading the Qur'an. It's the problem of those who say Islam is a religion of peace, that they must bend and twist the words of their scripture to support that assertion.

            If they were Jains [wikipedia.org] acting this way, it'd be easy to point out how they're being incoherent. Muslims acting violent and intolerant are simply implementing a straightforward version of their religion.

            --
            I don't respond to ACs.
            • (Score: 2) by monster on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:26PM

              by monster (1260) on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:26PM (#95053) Journal

              No sacred book is a clear, coherent group of rules. Incoherences and implicit meanings are plentiful in all of them, so it's not strange that the same book can give reasons for radically different interpretations, even more if you include as canon the interpretations of "respected fathers of the church" like encyclicals, fatwas and so on. In that aspect, islam is no different than cristianism, buddhism, judaism, hinduism and the others.

              • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday September 18 2014, @06:01PM

                by HiThere (866) on Thursday September 18 2014, @06:01PM (#95099) Journal

                Well, in this particular case Mohammed had to get his followers fighting against enemies while he was still alive and writing the scriptures. So it's not too surprising that they are more violent than most current religious scriptures. (Most are created by people who aren't required to fight as a religious duty during the lifetime of the prophet.) The only other case that's as violent, that I can think of, is the Biblical Old Testament...and even that has long periods of peace, or at least periods when the people grabbing up weapons weren't the Jews.) Going further field the Vedas were equally violent in origin (certainly the Bhagavad Gita is equally, or more, violent). So are the Norse Myths..at least the ones that deal with the doings of mortals more than gods. The ones that deal with gods are pretty violent too, though.

                So we've here got basically two classes:
                1) The "inspired" work of a prophet that is elaborated by generations following, but is pretty much intact, probably. Usually peaceful.
                and
                2) The mythic history of a people. Usually violent.

                The Muslim faith is an outlier, being an example of 1 that's nearly as violent as 2. This is because the prophet had to fight for his religion during his lifetime as well as write the scriptures...so the scriptures has to justify his actions.

                OTOH, it is neither true that believing a peaceful faith makes one peaceful nor that believing a violent faith makes one violent. There are entire centuries where the Muslim world has been relatively peaceful and civilized while the Christian world has been violent and barbaric. It's true, however, that since the peaceful Muslim world went down in flames under Tamerlane, the muslims have tended to be violent and barbaric. An important word here is tended. This is an artifact of history, not inherent in their religion.

                People have an extremely strong tendency to do what they want, and then justify it in terms of their religion.

                --
                Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
                • (Score: 2) by keplr on Thursday September 18 2014, @07:26PM

                  by keplr (2104) on Thursday September 18 2014, @07:26PM (#95160) Journal

                  centuries where the Muslim world has been relatively peaceful

                  I'm not sure you want to commit to this statement. Peace was achieved within Dar al-Islam, the House of Islam, because everyone was converted, killed, or subjugated. The borders of this vast empire were painted with the blood of Kufir, the heretics--all non-Muslims who refused to live under Islamic jurisprudence. It just happens that they went through a period of time when their internal divisions and fissures were temporarily mastered and allowed a bit of breathing room for science, art, and literature (though still stifled by the limitations imposed by Islam). Art, for example, suffered the restriction of human figures being forbidden. Although this did lead to a stunningly beautiful tradition of calligraphy and geometric art.

                  A culture anchored by a violent religion will absolutely lead to violence above the human baseline. There are simply religious forms of violence which are unthinkable in a secular culture. No secular culture engages in honor killings, human sacrifices, or executions for blasphemers. These things require a religious substrate. Secular cultures can be violent also, but those types of violence just won't be found.

                  --
                  I don't respond to ACs.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @08:32PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @08:32PM (#95184)

                    Yay! A jihadwatch devotee comes to soylent.

                    As usual over-simplification is harnessed for political ends.
                    http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/figs/hd_figs.htm [metmuseum.org]

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 19 2014, @01:11AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 19 2014, @01:11AM (#95308)

                    No secular culture engages in honor killings, human sacrifices, or executions for blasphemers. These things require a religious substrate.

                    Well, technically, you are correct. On the other hand, The Khmer rouge, and the NK regime come pretty darn close in spirit, if not in actual fact. But that seems to me to be a distinction with barely a hair's width of a difference.

                    • (Score: 2) by keplr on Friday September 19 2014, @06:03AM

                      by keplr (2104) on Friday September 19 2014, @06:03AM (#95370) Journal

                      I can play that game in the other direction, and say that North Korea is actually running a state religion--making blasphemy as a crime nothing unusual. Christopher Hitchens said that DPRK was the most religious society he had ever visited, and he was no stranger to the middle East.

                      --
                      I don't respond to ACs.
                  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday September 19 2014, @07:29PM

                    by HiThere (866) on Friday September 19 2014, @07:29PM (#95611) Journal

                    I think, though I'm not sure, you need to check your calendar. I'm talking about the period characterized by cities like Samarkand along the silk road. Yes, there were wild people along the frontiers, like in Egypt, but the civilization was peaceful. (Yes, there was civil unrest. There nearly always is if there aren't external enemies.) These were people who made their wealth from the caravan trade along the silk route...and depended for their wealth on the caravans feeling secure within their walls, and relatively secure within the territory that they controlled.

                    For that matter, the Muslim conquerors of northern Africa and into Spain were considerably less oppressive than the Christians of the same time period. Their preference was not to kill those they couldn't convert, but rather to subject them to a punitive tax rate until they changed their minds. (Not that they weren't fierce in battle, I'm talking about times where there weren't armies in collision.)

                    OTOH, the Muslim countries do traditionally have a greater tolerance for slavery and physically brutal punishments for religious infractions than do modern Christian nations. (Do note the change in time.) The problem here is that the physically brutal punishments are written into Muslim tradition, where the Christians were always conflicted about this, and Jesus is essentially explicit in denouncing it. Mohamed, in contrast, considered it reasonable and proper. This makes it difficult for the adherents to his scripture to adapt to the changed circumstances. (Though one should note that the "followers" of Jesus have often been quite willing to claim religious sanction for brutality and violence, no matter what the words of their "Savior" say.)

                    So while I will agree that the fanatical followers of a religion may well have attitudes towards violence that are different from the human baseline, I'm not at all convinced that this is true for the ordinary adherents of that religion. (And I'm not certain how well founded in the Koran is Sharia Law, though it is clearly a strong part of existing Muslim culture. It's amazing how different people are willing to make different generalizations from the same facts.)

                    Also consider that many of the Catholic inquisitors may have both read the Bible and yet believed that what they were doing was sanctioned by Jesus. Verbal beliefs don't necessarily have much to do with belief motivated actions. Often the later verbalizations sound more like justifications only constructed after the fact, but then believed.

                    --
                    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
                • (Score: 2) by monster on Friday September 19 2014, @07:41AM

                  by monster (1260) on Friday September 19 2014, @07:41AM (#95388) Journal

                  Quran is quite clear about allowing "peoples of the book" (christians and jews) to keep their faiths and customs unmolested, as long as they don't proselitize on the faithful. What is punished is converting to islam and then abandoning it, or falsely converting. In the first century of its existence, there were a lot of conversions, but they also conquered a lot of countries where the people who decided to keep their faiths could do so without problems, like with Armenia, Syria or Al-Andalus. That part of the book was respected, no matter what. However, there was also a non-religious reason to convert: Quran forbids taxing their believers, taxes can only be applied to peoples of other religions, so by converting people gained a "tax free" status and (later*) also better options to achieve social status.

                  That people can choose to ignore certain parts of a doctrine to achieve their goals is neither new nor exclusive to islam. How can christians find compatible the mandate to "put the other cheek" with warring and crusading is shocking. Same with judaism and "Thou shall not kill".

                  *For some generations, administrative and gubernative posts in islam were exclusively for arabs.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:58AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:58AM (#94906)

        You say that as though Christians didn't do the same at the same time. The Muslims of the time were a lot more moderate while the Christians were a lot more like the Muslims of today.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @12:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @12:13PM (#94932)

        > take the world back 1,000 years or so

        Sounds a lot like the Christian fundamentalists too.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:50AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:50AM (#94900) Journal

      The digits we use come from arabs, FFS.

      Algebra as well.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday September 18 2014, @01:25PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Thursday September 18 2014, @01:25PM (#94953)

        And algorithms. And a great deal of astronomy. And alchemy. And a whole bunch of other areas.

        For a few centuries, the leading center of scientific research in the world was in Baghdad. That was because the Abbasid Caliphate came to the conclusion that the advancement of knowledge through research was not only compatible with Islam but in fact would be a way of honoring Allah by gaining a greater understanding of the beauty of his creation. And since ISIL claims to be restoring the Caliphate, shouldn't they be trying to follow in the footsteps of guys like Al-Mansur?

        --
        The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
        • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday September 18 2014, @05:28PM

          by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday September 18 2014, @05:28PM (#95085)

          Perhaps, but it's pretty tricky to run a tightly controlled theocracy with an well educated populace.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Geotti on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:51PM

        by Geotti (1146) on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:51PM (#95064) Journal

        And, if you look at some of the patterns on important building, it looks strikingly similar to stereographic projections of polychorons and polytopes.

        See, for example here [wordpress.com], here [wolfram.com], here [wikipedia.org].

        Compare, e.g. to here [featurepics.com]. (I didn't find an actual example for comparison, but if you go through some parts of this [dimensions-math.org], I'm pretty sure, most people will notice the resemblance -not only to the Arab world- as well, which is scary.)

    • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday September 18 2014, @06:36PM

      by opinionated_science (4031) on Thursday September 18 2014, @06:36PM (#95118)

      I quite like the characterisation...They are not terrorists, there is no such thing. They are criminals with psychopathic tendencies that want attention.

      Terrorism == Trolling for attention + pschopathic violence

      Very disturbing, nonetheless....:-(

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Buck Feta on Thursday September 18 2014, @07:45PM

      by Buck Feta (958) on Thursday September 18 2014, @07:45PM (#95171) Journal

      > The digits we use come from arabs

      Except the middle one; that comes from New Yorkers.

      --
      - fractious political commentary goes here -
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by _NSAKEY on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:44AM

    by _NSAKEY (16) on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:44AM (#94868)

    It's sad to see that today's caliphate is so eager to distance itself from its roots [wikipedia.org]. It's probably safe to assume that they also ban all references to the Mongols in whatever passes for history class...

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by geb on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:46AM

    by geb (529) on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:46AM (#94869)

    I'm not sure I believe this. I'd want to see a better source before I accept the claim about mathematics being banned.

    Music does go against radical interpretations of Islam, and I can understand why believers in a creator god would dislike the teaching of evolution. For somebody who believes in Sharia, democracy might be seen as a dangerous challenge to the perfect set of laws. I can even understand wanting to attach the phrase "because Allah said so" onto every physical law.

    But mathematics? Seriously?

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:50AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:50AM (#94871)

      democracy is basically mob rule... there's nothing fair about it, particularly if you're part of a minority

      distant future generations will look back on our feeble existence and laugh

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:08AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:08AM (#94879)

      Yeah, that does seem stupid.

      "Hello, I would like to buy one of those for two silver, and one of those for three silver. Here's the three silver I owe you".

      "Hold it, that's five silver in total".

      "Oh really? I disagree"

      "Two plus three equals five".

      "Oh, math... Burn the heretic".

      ... goes to the next seller at the market ...

      "Hello, I would like to buy one of those for five silver and one of those for ten silver. Here's you three silver".

      And no beautiful palaces either, with neither PI, right angles nor triangles.

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:36AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:36AM (#94892)

        Or:

        "They cannot shoot at us much longer. They only have twenty shots, and I've counted fifteen which they already fired. So they only can fire five more shots."
        "How did you get this number?"
        "Well, it's simple math ... oh, shit ... aaargh!"

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:22PM

          by Gaaark (41) on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:22PM (#95048) Journal

          And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once at the number three, being the third number to be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it."

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:30AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:30AM (#94890)

      Mathematics is logical thinking. They quite obviously don't want to teach the ability to think. After all, people might try to use that skill on other subjects than expressions and shapes.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MrGuy on Thursday September 18 2014, @02:49PM

      by MrGuy (1007) on Thursday September 18 2014, @02:49PM (#95000)

      TFA claims teaching ANY math is banned. Any at all.

      It also claims that any teaching of the rules of physics are required to state that they are "due to Allah's rules and laws."

      How the heck are you teaching physics without math? Once you get beyond "see, gravity!" there's not much to teach without using SOME amount of math.

      Personally, I welcome a terrorist society that's decided it can make due without the ability to do any kind of logisticial or resource planing. Good luck getting your limited foodstuffs where they need to go without running any numbers!

      • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Thursday September 18 2014, @06:14PM

        by SlimmPickens (1056) on Thursday September 18 2014, @06:14PM (#95107)

        methinks if you can see gravity you can do a whole lot without math ;)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @03:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @03:31PM (#95020)

      > I'm not sure I believe this. I'd want to see a better source before I accept the claim about mathematics being banned.

      It is newsweek. When they were still in print they were just one step above tabloid news.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:47AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:47AM (#94870)

    ...without maths their ballistics expertise will be pretty shit

    unfortunately they might still be able to buy rockets designed for americans, with voice destination targeting and a big red button

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Alfred on Thursday September 18 2014, @01:46PM

      by Alfred (4006) on Thursday September 18 2014, @01:46PM (#94963) Journal

      I thought that too. But for some reason terrorists are good at recruiting engineers.
      There must be some sort of class system. The guys in charge stay in charge as some sort of ruling elite. The commoner underling is sent to die. They probably keep their engineers for things the commoners cant do.

      No one ever teaches how to be a suicide bomber from experience. This sounds like a move to get uneducated masses primed for jihad as expendable meat bags.

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday September 18 2014, @02:42PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Thursday September 18 2014, @02:42PM (#94999)

        My understanding of it, according to reporters and researchers who have studied the phenomenon of suicide bombers, is that the primary purpose of a suicide bombing from the point of view of the terrorist group committing the act is to get rid of really stupid would-be terrorists who might jeopardize their more important plans. It also works really really well if you think that enthusiastic new recruit is actually a Western spy - send him on a suicide bombing, and problem solved, because the spy can neither refuse to go on the mission (without blowing his cover) nor return to the group if he decides to escape rather than blow himself up.

        The guys in charge stay in charge as some sort of ruling elite. The commoner underling is sent to die.

        In the US Army, the guys in charge mostly sit in comfortable offices thousands of miles away while privates, corporals, and sergeants get killed. How is this any different?

        --
        The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
    • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Thursday September 18 2014, @03:51PM

      by metamonkey (3174) on Thursday September 18 2014, @03:51PM (#95030)

      Allah will guide our holy rockets to righteously blow up the infidels.

      --
      Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:26AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:26AM (#94886)

    "Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" -- George Orwell

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:02AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:02AM (#94908)

    It is ISIL, not ISIS.

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/767/932/805/ [thepetitionsite.com]

    Also I agree with other posters who say this does not ring true. The position described does not resemble Islam in any way. I hate to say it but the viewpoint described is more like how the rest of the world views your average American. I think it could only have been made up by an American.

    I guess since they are talking about fictional organisation called ISIS, which does not exist outside of the imagination of the American media, the media can say anything they want.

    I forget which is it we have always been at war with? Eastasia or Eurasia?

    • (Score: 1) by Username on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:23AM

      by Username (4557) on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:23AM (#94915)

      I find it hard to believe the current problems in the middle east aren't Islamic or related to issues in Iraq or Syria.

      Do you work for the Obama administration?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:59AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:59AM (#94926)

        > Do you work for the Obama administration?

        So far from it that neither your statement, your question nor its relevance to my post make any sense to me. I am sure if I were trapped in the same reality tunnel as you are, it would parse easily.

        The American reality tunnel is so narrow and so weirdly constrained to such a small field of mostly made up facts that it has rendered the propaganda, what many would call entertainment (sit-coms, movies, music, stand-up comics, news), un-pallatable to everybody who lives in the real world where often there more than two options or possibilities as scary as that may be.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @12:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @12:04PM (#94929)

          Point in fact, the refusal to acknowledge the reality that there is currently no Islamic group active in Iraq named ISIS. Catchy name, goes back millennia, I can see why the media like to throw it around but whenever they are talking about ISIS and it is in reference to some purported occurrence in Iraq, who knows what they are referring to.

    • (Score: 1) by Stuntbutt on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:36PM

      by Stuntbutt (662) on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:36PM (#95057)

      There have been various reporting statements about this. Even NPR addresses this issue. The original name of the group was ISIL. This is somewhat an artifact of translation. ISIS is a snappier name, and the western media caught on to it. The Islamic State name is a "re-branding" effort and simplification. President Obama has explicitly stated he, and the DOD, will continue to use ISIL in order to discredit rebranding efforts.

      No one gives a shit. If you say ISIL, ISIS, or Islamic State, everyone know who you're talking about.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @05:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @05:43PM (#95090)

        There have been various reporting statements about this. Even NPR addresses this issue. The original name of the group was ISIL. This is somewhat an artifact of translation. ISIS is a snappier name, and the western media caught on to it. The Islamic State name is a "re-branding" effort and simplification. President Obama has explicitly stated he, and the DOD, will continue to use ISIL in order to discredit rebranding efforts.

        Actually, if we really want to discredit ISIS (or ISIL, or whatever), we should call them Daesh [washingtonpost.com]. Apparently, they really hate that.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Justin Case on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:22AM

    by Justin Case (4239) on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:22AM (#94914) Journal

    Recruits were beginning to question if there would be enough virgins to go around, thanks to their math skills. Questions cannot be tolerated. So of course the science must be suppressed to preserve the dogma!

    Any similarity to the behavior of idiotic school boards in your nearby states is purely coincidental. After all, our dogma is the right dogma.

  • (Score: 1) by francois.barbier on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:56AM

    by francois.barbier (651) on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:56AM (#94924)

    Considering this region on earth is the cradle of humankind and the source of immense knowledge (they invented algebra), it's a real pity how they try to get back to the dark ages.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @12:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @12:18PM (#94935)

      Yeah don't they know, we offer them lolcats and porn of anything? What culture could they possibly be trying to preserve at the expense of the opportunity to view images of a man bending over and spreading his arsehole to unimaginable proportions?

      I cannot imagine why every culture on earth has not queued up to embrace everything western culture has to offer. Things like Mc Donalds and Monsanto and the opportunity to enjoy entertainment such as Charmed and Kill Bill which glorify extreme violence against women, depicting them as indestructible, able to take any beating not to mention gang bang porn featuring one young women with dozens of men.

      Such are the wonderful, enlightened products of our western attitudes towards women. Why would every nation on earth not want its culture to be annihilated and replaced?

      Fortunately for all those shadowy areas of the world harbouring primitive cultures where women are not counted as equal, where they are held up with adoration and esteem, and respected and valued for the special contribution they make to each person, the home and society, fortunately for those shadowy areas, America does not waste time asking such questions, they are on their way to a villlage near you to blast whatever primitive ram shackle attempt at culture they might be trying and bring them drugs that make them impotent and drugs that make them hard and fast-fast everything TM (R) Please read the small print, the rights of the product are senior to the rights of the individual.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday September 18 2014, @03:13PM

        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday September 18 2014, @03:13PM (#95011) Journal

        I know, I know, DNFTT and way OT, but this made me raise an eyebrow:

        > Kill Bill which glorify extreme violence against women,

        Now I'm not exactly going to hold up Kill Bill as a great statement of feminism, but to say that it specifically glorifies violence against women is just... well... wrong. Glorifies violence in general? Yeah, sure, but that's a different argument. Violence against women? Not really. Certainly not men against women. Maybe women against women..? You could probably argue that. But the fact remains that any man in Kill Bill who attempts to harm a woman is portrayed either as a faceless mook or an outright villain. Needless to say all such men in the films are fatally punished sooner or later. (With one exception - a young man who is spanked and told to "go home to his mother" - insert your own feminist essay here about matriarchal power.)

        From memory, the amount of killings in the Kill Bill films is something like this:
        Women killed by men - zero.
        Women killed by women: About seven or eight.
        Men killed by women: Gotta be a hundred or more.

        The numbers aren't exact but it's pretty clear who's winning. Like I say, I'm not exactly sure you could call it feminism, but Kill Bill certainly does represent women as strong - stronger than men in fact - and it does nothing to to reward of glorify violence against women.

        • (Score: 1) by pnkwarhall on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:41PM

          by pnkwarhall (4558) on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:41PM (#95060)
          The "Kill Bill" part is what you respond to? It's taboo most places to question the value of western culture or the Internet, but in a post that is quite clearly questioning the value of the exports of the western world, and uses a great example of a cultural export of questionable value (a very violent Tarentino flick that glorifies revenge) you deign to respond to something that's not even said? "Kill Bill" **does** glorify violence against women -- it's irrelevant in the context of parent's comment that the violence is mostly committed by a woman. In fact, if you want to change the sentence to reflect your point ("Kill Bill" glorifies violence against and/or by women), it doesn't change the communication.

          While I do not agree with the Islamic attitude towards women, I don't think the modern American attitude is a much better replacement. Whatever the "true" goals and beliefs of IS, the parent poster is pointing out a truth that significant populations of the world do not accept that the Western/American culture is an improvement over the traditional native culture, especially where it conflicts with deeply-ingrained religious convictions.

          As a regular Soylent poster's signature says: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." In many areas of the world, this attitude is enacted in ways that we find "extremist".
          --
          Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
          • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday September 19 2014, @09:59AM

            by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday September 19 2014, @09:59AM (#95414) Journal

            To be honest I only bothered replying to the Kill Bill bit because that was the only bit that caught my interest. The rest I considered pretty troll-tastic, and I very nearly left the whole thing alone.

            > Kill Bill" **does** glorify violence against women -- it's irrelevant in the context of parent's comment that the violence is mostly committed by a woman. In fact, if you want to
            > change the sentence to reflect your point ("Kill Bill" glorifies violence against and/or by women), it doesn't change the communication.
            No. When people talk about "violence against women" they are talking exclusively about violence perpetrated by men. Woman-on-woman violence does happen, but then it is generally just called "violence". The fact that it is "against women" means that gender is an issue, and gender is only an issue if (a) the person committing the violence is a man or (b) it's committed by a woman but as a result of some patriarchal culture or tradition (FGM for example).
            Therefore Kill Bill does not glorify "violence against women", it glorifies violence and, yes, revenge as you rightly pointed out. Not saying that's a good thing (although I don't think fiction is as poisonous as some people do) but it's another argument.

            OK, next point: I agree that Western culture has a lot of deep-rooted psychological problems to overcome, and should have taken the opportunity to learn from many of the other older and wiser cultures it has obliterated, but to criticise western culture for violence and women's rights in the context of a discussion about barbarian fundamentalist dipshits like ISIL is absolutely farcical.

            Kill Bill depicts pretend, make-believe beheadings. No actors were beheaded in the making of this movie. ISIL do it for real, against good people who never offered them any harm at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_ISIL_beheading_incidents [wikipedia.org]

            Gangbang porn (as mentioned in GGP) is squicky for a lot of people and many view it as oppressive towards women, but if everyone involved is consenting then as far as I'm concerned it's up to them. Women in the west (including porn actresses) enjoy all sorts of rights and freedoms that women in ISIL-controlled territory could only dream of. ISIL actually use rape as a weapon: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/jul/03/isis-iraqi-women-rape-violence-repression [theguardian.com]

            Seriously, it's like busting into a thread about starving refugees and complaining that western culture is no better because western restaurants never manage to cook your steak the way you want it.

            • (Score: 1) by pnkwarhall on Saturday September 20 2014, @06:05PM

              by pnkwarhall (4558) on Saturday September 20 2014, @06:05PM (#95909)

              troll-tastic

              Seriously, it's like busting into a thread about starving refugees and complaining that western culture is no better because western restaurants never manage to cook your steak the way you want it.

              My main disagreement with you is that AC is a troll. The comment was a relevant response to GP's post that the IS desires to go back to the "dark ages". The major unspoken argument for or against taking action against IS is whether to consider them a violent terrorist organization or a legitimate cultural-political entity that desires to create a state founded on rejecting Western influence.

              Whatever the true nature of the IS, The current Western view of IS is a cultivated propaganda against recognizing the IS (any by association Muslims in general) as having any legitimate goals or beliefs. The fact that this very thread is a response to a baseless and deleted CNN article gives weight to my argument that the Western powers-that-be have a goal to stereotype the IS as a "just another terrorist organization". But the reality that they are drawing "converts" from many Western countries means that there is a larger context that is being ignored.

              That context was alluded to by the AC, and by my own arguments that AC is not "just another troll". Your quibbling over minor details of AC's post, and dismissing their critique of Western "improvements", signifies that you have swallowed the propaganda -- hook, line, and sinker.

              I challenge you to re-consider AC's "troll" post -- particularly the last paragraph -- in the context of American corporatocracy. Since you're on Soylent, I think we can at least begin with that common foundation.

              --
              Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
              • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 23 2014, @12:03PM

                by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday September 23 2014, @12:03PM (#97117) Journal

                OK, it looks like I misunderstood you. I still don't agree with you though.

                > The major unspoken argument for or against taking action against IS is whether to consider them a violent terrorist organization or a legitimate cultural-political entity that
                > desires to create a state founded on rejecting Western influence.

                Maybe, but I don't really subscribe to that. It seems to me they are more about creating a state based on their interpretation of Islam than about rejecting Western influence (although fundamentalist Islam and western ideals are pretty much mutually exclusive, so it's a fine line). My personal view is that yes, we the west brought this on ourselves via two centuries of imperialistic dicking around in middle eastern politics. It's time to withdraw, apologise and let them get on with it. I wish we could help but we really can't. We've fucked things up so badly that we can only make it worse. Let our only presence there be commercial and humanitarian. Maybe then we can start to earn some trust and respect. Nothing we can do there militarily will ever do any good.

                > The comment was a relevant response to GP's post that the IS desires to go back to the "dark ages".

                I guess this is the crux of it. IS want to ban science and mathematics, reduce women to chattel and rule through overt violence and brutal capital / corporal punishment. That sounds pretty "Dark Agey" to me. Yes, there are some wacky people in the west who vehemently deny science. There are Western countries who still practise barbaric torture and executions (glares meaningfully across the Atlantic) and some folks with strange and poisonous attitudes about women, but those problems are not endemic and they do not represent the West as a whole.

                > The current Western view of IS is a cultivated propaganda against recognizing the IS (any by association Muslims in general) a

                No, I don't think anybody but the far right fuckwits on Fox are saying that "Muslims in general" don't have legitimate goals or beliefs. IS do not represent Muslims in general.

                > to stereotype the IS as a "just another terrorist organization".

                Again, I couldn't give a crap what the media wants to paint them as. The word "terrorist" is so over-used as to be meaningless now. If I had to characterise IS I think I'd have to go for "brutal, medieval shit-stains." That's not a judgement on Islam or the middle East or anyone else, it's specifically on that organisation currently running about Syria and Iraq executing aid workers and raping the local populace. Yes, the people of the middle east have legitimate grievances about western meddling , but there is no excuse and no justification for beheading peaceful people and gleefully raping entire townfuls of women. Trying to compare IS favourably to any western country - even America - is either unbelievably misguided or out and out trolling.

                > That context was alluded to by the AC, and by my own arguments that AC is not "just another troll". Your quibbling over minor details of AC's post, and dismissing their critique > of Western "improvements", signifies that you have swallowed the propaganda -- hook, line, and sinker.

                Well AC clearly didn't allude hard enough. All I read was a barely coherent attack on a few cherry-picked products of Western culture, with the implication/ context that IS stands for something better and nobler. You then proceeded to take me up on my "quibbling", which is why I continued down that path. I haven't swallowed any propaganda, but neither am I blind to the fact that Western culture, for all is myriad faults, is a hell of a lot better in almost every measurable way - justice, women's rights, medical care, (lack of) exposure to real violence, social mobility, a desire and ability to recognise and address its own shortcomings - than the peculiar version of hell that IS are planning to impose upon their conquests. We have been trying to impose our culture on them by force for a couple hundred years now, and that was a mistake. The British learned this the hard way when the Empire collapsed, and now the Americans are learning it too. What we are seeing now are the consequences of those mistakes. Regrettably, the people suffering are not the people responsible. So while I can understand the desire of the locals to free themselves of western culture, I maintain that to reject everything that we have to offer them and retreat back to the middle ages is their own mistake - a knee-jerk reaction that will ensure they are stuck in war and poverty for the next hundred and fifty years.

                > I challenge you to re-consider AC's "troll" post -- particularly the last paragraph -- in the context of American corporatocracy. Since you're on Soylent, I think we can at least
                > begin with that common foundation.

                I acknowledge that the west isn't perfect, and that the corruption at the heart of our government / corporate class is at the root of most of our evils. However IS are no better - do you really think their noble and idealistic leaders will selflessly usher in a fair and balanced islamic paradise for all of their people? I don't think so. When IS get the control they want I guarantee that within twenty years you'll have an elite ruling class, immune to the strict rules that shackle the masses, enjoying the most corrupt and decadent of forbidden luxuries and shitting in solid gold toilets while their populations starve and bleed and suffer. We've seen it before, again and again throughout history. Expecting it to play out differently this time is lunacy. That's why I still think Western culture is better - we are at least trying to move forward into a better future (even if the path is unclear and we make mistakes along the way) rather than back to an ignorant past that was ugly, violent and cruel.

    • (Score: 2) by cykros on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:42PM

      by cykros (989) on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:42PM (#95061)

      Worth noting is that during the European Dark Ages, they weren't in the Dark Ages themselves, which indeed is why we still have a LOT of knowledge that certainly wasn't being preserved in Europe during those centuries.

      At least if they're now going to do their own Dark Ages, they had the decency to wait until the West was capable of retaining our own archival stores of knowledge.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by weeds on Thursday September 18 2014, @01:14PM

    by weeds (611) on Thursday September 18 2014, @01:14PM (#94948) Journal

    The original story has been pulled by CNN. From the CNN page:

    Editor's note: An earlier version of this story contained reporting about ISIS and education. CNN has concerns about the interpretation of the information provided and we will update the story when we can verify what is happening.

  • (Score: 1) by slash2phar on Thursday September 18 2014, @05:55PM

    by slash2phar (623) on Thursday September 18 2014, @05:55PM (#95096)
    It's almost like these guys are going out of their way to taunt the US back into a full scale war. Now who would ever want to do that?