A Proposal For Dealing With Terrorist Videos On the Internet (vortex.com) 177
Lauren Weinstein writes: Recent claims by some (mostly nontechnical) observers that it would be "simple" for services like YouTube to automatically block "terrorist" videos, in the manner that various major services currently detect child porn images are nonsensical. One major difference is that those still images are detected via data "fingerprinting" techniques that are relatively effective on known still images compared against a known database, but are relatively useless outside the realm of still images, especially for videos of varied origins that are routinely manipulated by uploaders specifically to avoid detection. Two completely different worlds. So are there practical ways to at least help to limit the worst of the violent videos, the ones that most directly portray, promote, and incite terrorism or other violent acts? I believe there are.
Beetlejuice (Score:1)
We can't even programmatically detect and filter APK. Something tells me we're going to have a hard time with terrorist videos.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, APK can be annoying, but we accept all ACs, regardless of mental issues.
This is getting tiresome (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, such videos should not be removed, "Know thy enemy" you know. I guess the best way to deal with them is to put them behind the usual 18+ rating as youtube has already been doing for years to even slightly provocative clips.
Secondly, most people, this journalist included, don't understand terrorism. Its goal is not to kill, but to be heard and to suggest fear. Your risk of dying of terrorism is many magnitudes lower than dying from other natural courses, including a vehicle crash or cancer.
The best way to deal with terrorism is to neglect them totally. Don't let them on TV or radio, or Internet. Fight them behind the curtains.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
such videos should not be removed [...] Don't let them on TV or radio, or Internet.
So we should fight to keep them off the internet, but if they somehow managed to get on, we should let them stay there?
If that was not the message you were conveying, then please clarify.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How to work against them on the same medium? Don't post equal-and-opposite reactions -- this means your message is being controlled by the enemy.
This is so right and probably what the media has failed to do so far. In most of Europe I know there is a degree of press freedom, so they can do what they like, even if their reporting and way of working has a negative effect from the point of view of military strategy (or Cream Wobbly's strategy).
As an example: in both recent occasions when there were daesh-related killings in Paris, the media was quick to interview random people on the street, which resulted in testimonies of the type:
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to deal with terrorism is to neglect them totally.
I assume you meant 'ignore', not 'neglect'? But no, we should definitely not try to ignore them, on the contrary. We need to make them unattractive in the eyes of vulnerable, young people, as well as work to ensure the the young are not vulnerable to the pseudo-religious claptrap of extremists. People only fall for this kind idiocy because they are unable to find any hope of have a meaningful future in society.
We also, and I hate to say this, have to go and fight Daesh militarily with our own soldiers on th
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. English is not my native language, so sometimes I use the wrong words.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. English is not my native language, so sometimes I use the wrong words
Sorry if I sounded like I was trying to put you down - I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly; my own English isn't too brilliant either :-)
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to deal with terrorism is to neglect them totally. Don't let them on TV or radio, or Internet. Fight them behind the curtains.
You must be an out of work journalist with this sort of common sense. No one will hire you I'm sure.
The reason we have 'so many' school shootings these days is not because we actually have more (statistically, we don't actually) its because they are all televised, some of them nearly fucking live ... because the news media now days has to have us hanging on ever breaking peep about this shit.
So you take people who want attention ... then give them wild amounts of attention ... and then they are shocked whe
Re: (Score:2)
The news media is the problem. Though you seem to actually have a brain, so keep up the good fight but good luck, you'll need it.
Almost, but not quite.And you do hit right on the issue with the large amount of coverage given to events, and the level of coverage extending to some rather small events.
We're mentally stuck in a small tribe mode. In a world with billions of people in it, bad things will happen somewhere, to someone, every day. But we react as if it's in our neighborhood. I don't have the exact number of people we are mentally adapted to have in our mental "tribes" but recall it was something like 50 could be wrong on th
Re: (Score:2)
If you're referring to the so-called "Monkey Sphere" it's 150, not 50. It's supposed to be the largest number of people the average person can maintain an emotional connection with.
Okey Dokey - thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. These videos, again and again, have been cited by convicted terrorists as the reason why they went from moderate Muslims to murderous Muslims. Ignoring them won't help, in fact such head-in-the-sand tactics are have a 100% chance of failure.
Does it even occur to you that the only reason that Islamic terrorism is so rare is because security services do an outstanding job of smothering it? This year there were something like 378 terrorist plots in France, of which 377 were successfully detected and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about the murderous Jews? Why aren't we similarly removing videos by extremist Jews? Videos are being used to recruit more Jews to kill more people.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it even occur to you that the only reason that Islamic terrorism is so rare is because security services do an outstanding job of smothering it? This year there were something like 378 terrorist plots in France, of which 377 were successfully detected and disrupted.
No, it occurs to me that the only reason acts of terrorism wearing any ideology are so rare is because there are very few actual terrorists trying to attack anyone.
Wherever you are in the world, dear reader, stop right now and take 5 minutes to ponder how you might commit mass casualties in your city. They haven't made thinking illegal (yet), so pretend to be a psychopath for a few minutes and let that tape play out. Consider every scenario you can conjure up where you could kill or injure more than a dozen
Re: (Score:2)
This year there were something like 378 terrorist plots in France, of which 377 were successfully detected and disrupted.
Sure, there were. Since there were at least two success terrorist plots which weren't disrupted (remember the Charlie Hebdo shooting [wikipedia.org]) and a third attempt which failed only because there happened to be right there combat-trained people [cnn.com] willing to stop it. So right there, we know there were three terrorist plots which weren't detected and disrupted by the security apparatus this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Becoming "radicalized" is not a magical thing that will happen to you by watching these videos.
Nobody's saying it is. However, it is equally wrong to say that they have no effect at all on impressionable people.
You're probably one of those people who think they aren't influenced by advertising.
Re:This is getting tiresome (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you agree with TFA, then? Because "don't let them on the internet" seems to be what TFA is advocating.
Personally, I prefer treating them like common criminals. Don't give them the credit of being "terrorists". Call them what they are: murderers/thieves/whatever. Don't treat their trials as media circuses; instead give them exactly the coverage any other criminal would get....
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I prefer treating them like common criminals...Don't treat their trials as media circuses; instead give them exactly the coverage any other criminal would get....
Just so we're clear here, you want us to start giving them book deals, reality shows, YouTube royalties, and movie rights?
I guess you haven't noticed just how much we love rewarding hardened narcissists...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on, he was innocent, the jury acquitted because the glove didn't fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Just so we're clear here, you want us to start giving them book deals, reality shows, YouTube royalties, and movie rights?
Sure! "Wow, I'm rich and famous. Maybe America isn't so bad after all."
Re: (Score:2)
"Firstly, such videos should not be removed,"
"neglect them totally. Don't let them on... Internet."
So, which do you want?
Replace them with porn (Score:2)
If you're going to censor those videos, perhaps it would be better to replace them with (uncensored) porn. Muslims aren't allowed to look at it, and it will probably give them something to think about. Perhaps ease some of the tension in the Middle East.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the best thing to do is engage. Maybe ask YouTube etc to help promote opposing views along side the extremist ones, but that's about it.
We (the west) are not totally innocent or blameless here. We do bad things. Having this debate openly might actually be good for us too. And the reason the "terrorist" ideology is so attractive to some is that we don't engage with them and ISIS does. They feel like their own counties hate them and they don't belong (which to some extent is true) and get drawn into a wo
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Still doesn't make sense. First you say such videos should not be removed. Secondly you say they should not be allowed on Internet. Changing "Internet" to "news youtube channels" doesn't change the contradiction of not removing them while also not allowing them,
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be expressing two contradictory things; you're saying "such videos should not be removed", but then you're saying "Don't let them on TV or radio, or Internet. Fight them behind the curtains." Surely if we're not letting them on the internet, that means removing their videos?
It's pretty obvious he meant that news organisations shouldn't give them air time, show clips from their videos, etc..
It goes back to Margaret Thatcher ordering the BBC not to use Republicans own voices in TV interviews in order to deny them the "oxygen of publicity". In that case, it was a decision that backfired spectacularly as it actually provoked sympathy for the people being censored.
With ISIL/Daesh, just explaining what they are doing is more than enough to convince people that they are utterly
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is getting tiresome (Score:5, Informative)
Only the army and the spooks needs to know them that well. So remove them.
My father grew up in a totalitarian state and worked in a library, so he was allowed to see much of the censored subversive material. He has taught me a lot about the threats that actually face a population, rather than the ones manufactured by cunning propagandists.
The tl;dr of it is that he thinks the idea that the government should have a privileged position in being able to access speech is tyrannical, unworkable bullshit, and that it's mostly used to oppress dissent rather than to protect proportionately from immediate threats.
Re: This is getting tiresome (Score:4, Insightful)
No, other people need to know them too, or else you leave yourself open to having government authorities declare people to be terrorists regardless of whether they really are or not. Perhaps the victims of such false accusations are merely peaceful political opponents; you won't know if they're censored, and it's hardly unheard of for those in power to use any tool against those who would limit their power or remove them from power.
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
Re: (Score:2)
A terrorist is someone who uses terror to influence other's actions. It is a pretty clear thing if someone is using terror, because they kill lots of people, or blow shit up, or use other methods to induce terror.
Re: This is getting tiresome (Score:2)
And when the government tells me that some foreign group is so dangerous to us that they must be destroyed at all costs, even though I'm more likely to die from slipping in the shower than at their hands, and are so persuasive that they must be totally censored, they're trying to induce terror for the purpose of shoring up their own support domestically.
I would rather risk foreign terrorists posting videos on YouTube than allow our state to engage in terrorism and censorship. The damage that our own governm
Re: (Score:3)
no. wrong.
someday a government could decide you are the terrorist for some philosophical or religious idea you hold. An evil oppressive government will label good and decent patriots as terrorists. So we don't let the government or some corporation censor.
Your "let the people report them' is the same wrongheaded thinking the soviets and nazis used, and people turned in their neighbors they didn't like for crimes they didn't commit.
fuck that. fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
It is kind of hard to be called a terrorist when you don't engage in terror campaigns. If you peacefully state your position, there is no ability for the government to call you a terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
It is kind of hard to be called a terrorist when you don't engage in terror campaigns. If you peacefully state your position, there is no ability for the government to call you a terrorist.
Tell that to Russian government, today they imprison people for peaceful statements on the 'net, labeling them as terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
Does Russia even have freedom of speech or assembly?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you kind of have to admit, that someone speaking their mind is pretty terrifying to those in the government. I can see Putin being scared of people actually having some modicum of freedom. /s
Re: (Score:2)
I can see Putin being scared of people actually having some modicum of freedom
The trouble is, not only Putin is terrified, but much more than half of Russians are terrified at the thought of freedom. It's really scary for them. Once I talked to my relative, hard-working man from rural Russia, who had small business at that time selling CD disks. A told him about the internet and how it works. That was before widespread adoption of internet in Russia, 2001 or 2002 i think. He was really shocked when I t
Re: (Score:2)
guess again, U.S. government can label you a terrorist if it deems advice you give on your website aids terrorism
title 18 of the United States Code, sections 2339A and 2339B
Re: (Score:3)
>Only the army and the spooks needs to know them that well.
This kind of knowledge gap can be very dangerous to a democracy, where the people as a whole are tasked with evaluating and deciding on leadership.
Re: (Score:2)
We could replace it with that rodoman video or some achmed the dead terrorist.
What I Don't Understand... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say there are 300M (mostly) law abiding citizens in the US, and 500M in the EU, and that 0.001% of them are radicalized by these blatant attacks on civil liberties. You do the maths.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's say there are 5M Muslims in USA and 40M in Europe and lets say 0.001% of them are radicalised by stuff on the internet and moved to commit violent acts. You do the arithmetic.
That's still small change compared to all the other millions of people radicalised by shit on the internet. Get rid of those bullshit anti-Planned Parenthood videos first.
Re:Sick of Censorship (Score:4, Informative)
No. Those were carefully edited videos Planned Parenthood employees being defrauded by people trying to discredit them.
Some of those videos weren't even that.
Re: (Score:2)
Get rid of those bullshit anti-Planned Parenthood videos first.
Those were videos of Planned Parenthood employees talking about what they do at work. Does having publically funded organizations having what they do posted online offend you for some reason? Sounds like you want to force people to pay for things you want money spent on, but you don't think they should be allowed to express an opinion on it or even publically post what that money is being used for.
Are you so insecure in your opinions that you can't risk honest debate about it?
5 years ago the pro-lifers were radicalized with pictured of shredded fetuses, now they are radicalized with videos claiming those shredded fetuses can be harvested for organs.
Why argue with people who find logic in that?
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop calling them "pro-life". They are not "pro-life", they are "anti-abortion". Anyone who is not actively killing themselves, is "pro-life".
Yes, anti-abortion people chose the name "pro-life". It is time we steal it back from them in the name of truth in advertising.
Re: (Score:1)
They are not way in the east. They have a global presence which is extended further every day. They may even live next door.
You are not safe just because your in the US. We can ignore them, and they will continue to fester... We can fight them, and give the message they spout more validity... What we cannot do is take definitive and final action because it is too horrible to contemplate. (read as nukes)
What we have not done is ask: What exactly caused them to come into being? What do they want?
The ne
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly caused them to come into being?
Sex.
What do they want?
Sex.
How do we keep them from ever getting it?
They aren't getting it. That's why they are angry and are willing to die for any cause. They know they have no future.
Re: (Score:1)
Sex
While true, the real reason is money. Nobody works for free. And mercenaries are comparatively well paid. The angry ones work for cheap, but still, not free. When the great empires, in their competition for more turf, quit shipping them money and weapons everything will calm down very quickly. Either way, they should keep their proxy wars better contained.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not way in the east. They have a global presence which is extended further every day. They may even live next door.
You also have gang members who live next door. White supremacists live next door. Evangelical christians who support bombing abortion clinics and oppressing homosexuals live next door. Anti-government preppers live next door. Militant atheists who want to abolish all forms of religion (while purposefully ignoring that they themselves are bordering on religious fanaticism) live next door.
There are already a lot of bad, less bad, and not really bad just misinformed people living next door to you that are
Re: (Score:2)
And they may be under your bed.
The danger of being hurt or killed by terrorists is so vanishingly small that one has to wonder about the impulse behind the fear. It's interesting that the agenda of the terrorists is the same as the agenda of the political elite - to make us live in complaint fear. You're more likely to die of toenail fungus than from a terrorist attack, and yet about
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. You're just engaging in mindless fear mongering unsubstantiated by actual facts or mathematics.
I have already been the victim of much more severely limited probabilities so I am no longer impressed by either "terrorists" or "crazies with guns".
Not that I would have been impressed before. I can do the math.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not way in the east. They have a global presence which is extended further every day. They may even live next door.
Exactly! Right beside the Mexican Rapists that want to take our jerbs, and the chocolate people that want to rape our white wimmin!
I had no Idea that Donald Trump had a Slashdot account!
Re: (Score:2)
Does it make you feel better to intentionally misquote Trump and make him out to be something he is not?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Israel...
Re: (Score:2)
The reason: Pakistan. This darling country is becoming a nuke super-market. They are now interested in building tactical nuclear weapons because, goodness knows, those sneaky Indians are attempting to subvert the Pakistan culture with Bollywood or something.
All it would take for a real disaster is for those nice terrorists to do a deal with some disgruntled Pakistan military personnel and get their hands on a nuke. It might be difficult to slip it into the U.S. but they could take out a major city in Russia
Re: (Score:1)
Why does our society collectively feel so insecure about these people...?
Because there is big money in the fear industry. Regardless, everybody here is still on this religious angle, when the fact is that these people are nothing but paid mercenaries, and compared to regional wages, they are very well paid. So, please, we can drop the charade. This is business.
Re: (Score:2)
1. When they get lucky, terror acts are vivid and sensational -- media can't ignore.
2. Politicians reap benefits by playing the terrorist game.
3. No one wants to die by violence, or see their loved ones die that way, however low the numerical risk.
How Does This Proposal Compare to Bennett's? (Score:1)
I'm going to need Bennett Haselton to post a comprehensive analysis of this proposal and compare and contrast it to his own algorithm before I can make a truly informed decision to ignore this topic.
One word (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want people dealing with this. They'll abuse it and take down innocent videos of puppies and kittens.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can do it. (Score:2)
We can do speech to text, and search for groups of key words, that have a high statistical correlation. We can resolve video to a series of stills and use the same hashing methods and flesh tone detection porn filters use. Its actually not hard at all if you don't care about a high false positive rate.
The result though will be a very high false positive rate that makes these services way less useful.
I come back to it AGAIN the political sentiment is that something has to be 'done' about the the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think a politician that would make a "Great Firewall of America" would stop at that? Next, it would be that "the terrorists" and "terrorist sympathizers" are in America posting online trying to radicalize our children. So we need the government to look at every packet sent to make sure it's not a terrorist-packet. Yes, the NSA already tries doing this, but the politicians will push to have it 100% legal and without any checks on their power. Because checks are restrictions and you can't re
Re: (Score:2)
No its not an either or but it is a situation where the 'we have to do something' crowd is going to have their blood sacrifice. Think of it just like the TSA. The TSA has not really made air transportation secure, but 'we did something about it' the TSA exits. There are not really any strong calls now to fix the remaining problems / address the remaining risks.
I think our political energy out to spend stopping good encryption from being effectively outlawed, stopping government intervention in private on
Re: (Score:2)
So let's say we make a Great Firewall of America that stops terrorist videos from being viewed here. How we do it doesn't matter right now, but we do it. Mission accomplished, right?
No. Because it will get out that someone in RANDOM_COUNTRY can view those videos and become radicalized*. The politicians will demand that we fix this problem with our firewall. Never mind that someone from outside the US viewing a video hosted outside of the US wouldn't have anything to do with US-based Internet services.
Re: (Score:2)
To me Trump's vague statements about shutting some of that down are probably the best thing to run with. I would rather see Great Firewall of America where we largely cut off traffic to and from the rest of the world.
Thank you Kim Il Jung!
Your approach and North Korea's are remarkably identical.
Um - no thanks. if you want to be isolated from the world, move there, not try to turn the US into the best Korea.
Nanny knows best (Score:1)
So these videos you can watch and censor, and yet other people, well if they saw them they'd become radicalized?
So what makes you so special that you don't get radicalized?
Really Nanny Lauren? You think you are so special?
Youtubes policy on violent videos is its choice, those videos move to Liveleak, beheadings, killings etc. and are often shown selectively on Fox news. So apparently they're not so radicalizing, rather can be used as counter-propaganda.
> "Have you seen any of the current ISIL recruitment
Ignore them. (Score:1)
Ignore them.
AC
Come now (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't eat the pudding that suggests Muslims are the only god-belief group filled with folks who would punish those who disagree with them.
Hatred is a flammable, tangible thing, and it will burn itself out quickly enough.
Re: (Score:1)
And an anti-religious nut decided to do some cleansing of the ignorant religious folks with one of this years largest US mass shootings. Don't eat the pudding that radicalism is limited to gullible religious folks.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to be gullible religious folks to be terrorists. But it helps.
3 examples are not exhaustive (Score:2)
Along a timeline of a x length, every viewpoint gets to say what distasteful is.
Eventually, folks who think your speech is hateful will gain sway.
The real solution (Score:2)
The best solution would be that any time a terrorist video is found, the soundtrack is automatically replaced with Yakety Sax [youtube.com].
Clown Show (Score:2)
validity? (Score:1)
Lets say that your proposal is implemented in the full glory that you think it should be, Lauren.
What happens when your crowd starts filtering out content based on what they don't like?
What if your "large scale designed to average out variations in cultural attitudes" turns into a stuffed ballet box for one ideology/political party?
More importantly, what happens when the messages go underground to websites that are not part of your anti-ISIS cabal?
Seems to me that the best we can do is make the report inapp
Re: (Score:2)
Lets say that your proposal is implemented in the full glory that you think it should be, Lauren.
What happens when your crowd starts filtering out content based on what they don't like?
Eventually we would be living in a world where the periodic table of elements would be classified.
That is not even remotely sarcasm. A knowledgable person could look at that and come up with some nasty stuff. So we ban that. Also the knowledge that nasty things can be built, but then we have to make certain people don't understand science.
In other words, this quest for banning things, for shutting the US off from the rest of the world ends up planting us firmly in the dark ages. And not any "safer".
"Dealing" with videos (Score:2)
The gun enthusiast solution: (Score:2)
Better idea... (Score:4, Funny)
Require all of the videos to be played back at 150% speed, with the musical accompaniment of the Nyancat song, with all voices replaced by audio clips of 1980s children's television shows and subtitles in the style of the doge meme.
Just about as practical to implement and probably more effective.
Almost there (Score:2)
We are working out the final bugs for a filter to differentiate between our (approved) jingoism from their (unapproved) incitement.
Company specialized in doing exactly this: (Score:2)
Video recognition. This Vienna-based company is called SailLabs [sail-labs.com]. I'm sort of acquainted with the CTO, and got a demo once. Pretty awesome. They can analyze hundreds of video streams in near-real time.
Get yourself noticed (Score:2)
So the big idea is to crowd source detection, where people will volunteer to spend their time rooting out videos of a dubious nature?
This sounds like ;
A) an excellent way of getting yourself on a watch list as a consumer of videos of the kind that gets you noticed by the authorities.
B) an excellent excuse if you are a consumer of videos of the kind that gets you noticed by the authorities.
A Compromise! (Score:2)
For videos that just consist of an encoded series of frames and maybe a soundtrack; perhaps we should stop hyperventilating.
Terrible "solution" to an exaggerated threat (Score:2)
There exists a legitimate threat, as evidenced by San Bernardino, Paris and other successful attacks that militant groups have been able to pull off. I think we can also expect many more of these going forward. That threat is being greatly exaggerated however. We need to keep cool and examine it at a rational level. It's unfortunate that people don't seem to have the slightest understanding of probabilities. e.g. comparing the odds of being killed or injured by a terrorist vs. the odds of being killed
I think they should have the freedom (Score:2)
to say that they don't want anyone to have the freedom to say what they want.
If a private service wants to ban them or whatever, that's fine, but having major presidential candidates railing about how we should be colluding to censor them everywhere is fucking scary. That's a very slippery slope and more indicative of a terrorist victory than any beheading video.
Censoring ISIS (Score:2)
Take down (Score:2)
Hiding the Truth (Score:2)
When the first of the concentration camps in NAZI Germany were liberated, there was some doubt among those not present about the veracity of the reports. The sheet scale of the horror was hard to comprehend as it had never been done in modern history. Thousands of pictures and movies were made of the camps in order to preserve the evidence of just how bad humanity can be. Hiding the truth of those horrors does not prevent them from recurring.
The truth about what terrorists say is important for people to
Why bother? (Score:2)
This is the internet! After you've seen one beheading, you've seen 'em all. Unless they get creative and mix up their style, nobody will give a shit about those videos anymore in a month or two.
Playing into their hands (Score:3)
The very idea of censoring them proclaims our hypocrisy even more loudly than their crimes against humanity: Freedom of Speech (TM) is only allowed for White Christians. Even worse, it lends credence to their conceit that such videos can easily destroy the very concept of a secular, open, democratic society (although even that concept is fraying badly due to self-harm allowed by power-mad fascists). Cowardice, plain and simple.
How about a little reverse terrorism? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may get your wish.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini... [pinimg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This. The most efficient way to disarm a terrorist is to ridicule him. The worst enemy of people and regimes who build their power on fear is to show that they're essentially just buffoons and clowns.
Why do you think they get their panties in a knot whenever there is a hint of satire and mockery in the air? Especially when aimed at their imaginary buddy. "That's serious stuff, you cannot make fun of it!"
Like hell you can! A grown up man who acts all serious with an imaginary friend, if that's not a source f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)