Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Lilly

Amazon pulls ISIS rag

12 posts in this topic

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33035453

Copies of Islamic State's English-language propaganda magazine, Dabiq, have been pulled from the website of online retailer Amazon.

Four different volumes were available for sale on the site, but in a statement to the BBC, Amazon said the product had now been removed.

The author of the publications was listed as al-Hayat Media Centre, which is IS's Western-focused media arm.

Islamic State is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK.

The magazines were being sold in paperback form on Amazon sites in the UK, US, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. It can be downloaded for free elsewhere.

Amazon's statement to the BBC read: "This product is no longer available for sale." The company did not give any further details.

Dabiq is described on Amazon as "a periodical magazine focusing on issues of tawhid (unity), manhaj (truth-seeking), hijrah (migration), jihad (holy war), and jama'ah (community)".

The publication, named after the small Syrian town of Dabiq for symbolic reasons, was launched in 2014.

Amazon's websites list the publisher of the magazines as "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform", which is an Amazon-owned self-publishing company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how nobody will scream censorship on this one... Would hate to imply ones self as a terrorist sympathizer...

Censorship is censorship no matter who is the one being censored. It's stuff like this that will pave the way for censorship against possibly even YOU in the future.

We can't have double standards.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how nobody will scream censorship on this one... Would hate to imply ones self as a terrorist sympathizer...

Censorship is censorship no matter who is the one being censored. It's stuff like this that will pave the way for censorship against possibly even YOU in the future.

We can't have double standards.

As far as I know the publication itself hasn't been banned - yet. That is the point I would consider it to be censorship.

Amazon have decided that they won't sell it, probably because under British law it is illegal to become involved in an arrangement which makes funds available for terrorism. Although I'm reasonably sure that ISIS isn't relying on the revenue from a few magazine sales to do it's evil deeds.

Also it would be a PR nightmare for Amazon if they continued to sell it.

Freedom of expression is one of our most valuable rights but it has its limits. Usually I agree with the statement  "I don't agree with what you are saying but I will defend your right to say it." However, I will never defend ISIS, I would prefer them all to go off and meet their maker tout suite. Same goes for paedophiles. I don't believe that they have a right to publish and distribute their ideas either.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know the publication itself hasn't been banned - yet. That is the point I would consider it to be censorship.

Amazon have decided that they won't sell it, probably because under British law it is illegal to become involved in an arrangement which makes funds available for terrorism. Although I'm reasonably sure that ISIS isn't relying on the revenue from a few magazine sales to do it's evil deeds.

Also it would be a PR nightmare for Amazon if they continued to sell it.

Freedom of expression is one of our most valuable rights but it has its limits. Usually I agree with the statement  "I don't agree with what you are saying but I will defend your right to say it." However, I will never defend ISIS, I would prefer them all to go off and meet their maker tout suite. Same goes for paedophiles. I don't believe that they have a right to publish and distribute their ideas either.

 

 

​You make a valid point with the paedophiles, however it only murkies the water further when it comes to the moral objective concerning freedom of speech. There are no grey areas, whether we like it or not.

It wasn't too long ago that homosexuals or blacks couldn't freely express their ideologies (the former imho still shouldn't be, which further exemplifies the point I'm about to make), and yes, before you correct me by saying the act of paedophilia or terrorism is hardly comparable, it's not the acts which are under the debate but the freedom to express both ends of any spectrum. While we clearly do not agree with the act of paedophilia and all pedos should be hung by their own entrails, speech/expression of self is not a crime. The minute is does become one, we're that much closer to the totalitarian regime TPTB so feverishly crave. We all have the choice of what we want to digest, it's not being forced on anyone.

The point you make about Amazon I agree with 100%. They're an independent entity that has full rights to determine what they do or do not advocate. That being said, maybe I jumped the gun a bit by declaring this censorship. The fact there was an article about it at all is somewhat akin to a mild form of conscious social engineering, whether it was intentional or not makes no difference. Allowing this "brand" of censorship without acknowledging the rights of whoever it is, no matter how much we dislike them, is a failure of duty on our behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of the shock effect that would have on any potential future terrorists as well... Here we are, defending THEIR rights as human beings but yet they're supposed to strap a bomb to themselves and take a bunch of innocents out... There might be some more second thoughts.

I'm not saying that will win the war, but wars ARE won winning the hearts and minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally get what you're saying. But the right to freedom of speech is not an unlimited one and the issue has been grappled with since antiquity. I doubt there will ever be a resolution on the issue that suits everybody. And I'm a glass of wine into my evening so you won't get much sense out me tonight (or maybe ever!) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally get what you're saying. But the right to freedom of speech is not an unlimited one and the issue has been grappled with since antiquity. I doubt there will ever be a resolution on the issue that suits everybody. And I'm a glass of wine into my evening so you won't get much sense out me tonight (or maybe ever!) :)

​Lol, the old wine excuse eh? ;P

You do realize I'm going to count this debate formally as a win. By default or not, makes no matter.

Take your butt over to chat one of these days and bring the wine. Chat and alcohol go hand in hand, you might even have a laugh. Of course, try to time it when I'm drinking for maximum hilarity.

(ps, it's early afternoon you lush)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah but now I'm back, so no win just yet! It may have been afternoon for you, but I think it was around 8pm for me :) 

You make a valid point with the paedophiles, however it only murkies the water further when it comes to the moral objective concerning freedom of speech. There are no grey areas, whether we like it or not.

There are grey areas which is why the issue has been debated since antiquity and continues to be debated today.

It wasn't too long ago that homosexuals or blacks couldn't freely express their ideologies (the former imho still shouldn't be, which further exemplifies the point I'm about to make), and yes, before you correct me by saying the act of paedophilia or terrorism is hardly comparable, it's not the acts which are under the debate but the freedom to express both ends of any spectrum. While we clearly do not agree with the act of paedophilia and all pedos should be hung by their own entrails, speech/expression of self is not a crime. The minute is does become one, we're that much closer to the totalitarian regime TPTB so feverishly crave. We all have the choice of what we want to digest, it's not being forced on anyone.

Regarding homosexuality - they couldn't express their ideology because it used to be a criminal act to do so. There fact that it's no longer a crime (in many countries) to be gay or to publish and distribute gay material, indicates to me that the slippery slope that you allude to isn't a forgone conclusion.   ie, they'll take this right, then this right, then this right until they're all gone. In this case injustice was overturned and a group of people gained rights.

Regarding Blacks in the US - I'll make the same point. They won rights. Their freedoms were restricted in all manner of ways and yet over time they made progress. They didn't lose more rights. 

 

The point you make about Amazon I agree with 100%. They're an independent entity that has full rights to determine what they do or do not advocate. That being said, maybe I jumped the gun a bit by declaring this censorship. The fact there was an article about it at all is somewhat akin to a mild form of conscious social engineering, whether it was intentional or not makes no difference. Allowing this "brand" of censorship without acknowledging the rights of whoever it is, no matter how much we dislike them, is a failure of duty on our behalf.

I don't agree that it's social engineering. I think it was news story and nothing more. That's not to say that social engineering doesn't take place. 

I won't acknowledge the rights of a terrorist organisation to spread their ideals nor the rights of a paedophile to spread theirs. Both intend to cause harm. Speech that causes harm has limits placed upon it. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right, and in some cases the things people say are considered to be crimes. Slander, libel, perjury, fraudulent statements and of course the famous shouting fire in a theatre. All are intend to cause harm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have friends from all walks of life, some are Christian, some are Buddhist, some are Agnostic and more, some are even Muslim - I have no problem (somewhere I already said this) as long as they do not try and "recruit" me or do their religious justification with me I'm fine with it.

Now, this may be a generalisation but it does make you think!

 

IF WE COULD JUST FIGURE OUT WHO'S CAUSING THE PROBLEM

The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theater Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims'

Think of it:

Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confucians living with Baha'i s = No Problem
Baha'i s living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha'i s = No Problem
Baha'i s living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confucians living with Hindus = No Problem

*********WHEREAS**************
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha'i s = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem

MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM

**********SO THIS LEADS TO *****************
They're not happy in Gaza
They're not happy in Egypt
They're not happy in Libya
They're not happy in Morocco
They're not happy in Iran
They're not happy in Iraq
They're not happy in Yemen
They're not happy in Afghanistan
They're not happy in Pakistan
They're not happy in Syria
They're not happy in Lebanon
They're not happy in Nigeria
They're not happy in Kenya
They're not happy in Sudan

******** So, where are they happy? **********
They're happy in Australia
They're happy in England
They're happy in Belgium
They're happy in France
They're happy in Italy
They're happy in Germany
They're happy in Sweden
They're happy in the USA & Canada
They're happy in Norway & India
They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic!

And who do they blame?
Not Islam...
Not their leadership...
Not themselves...

THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!!

And they want to change the countries they're happy in, to be like
the countries they came from where they were unhappy!!!!

- Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR DIRECTIVE

- ISIS: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

- Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

- Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

- Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

- Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

- Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

- Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

- AbU- Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

- Al- Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

- Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

- Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

- Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

- Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

- Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

- Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

AND A LOT MORE !!!!!!!

ANY idea who’s causing the problem??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the fifth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.

Tim Freeman tsf@cs.cmu.edu

 

“They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Edited by Barbarossa
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.