Slashdot Mirror
B'nai Brith Pushes for Web Regulation
Baldrson writes: "Wired magazine reports that in late August, B'nai Brith Canada tried to get the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to pay attention to posts on the Islam Way weblog that solicited for volunteers to join Ossama bin Laden. According to the story: "...after media reports have suggested that Montreal and Halifax may have been meeting points for a number of the terrorists involved in the attack, B'nai Brith Canada is stepping up its efforts to get legislation passed to ban such Web activity.""
As somebody wisely said on this list at KeepersOfLists.org, 'Bad People Use the Internet for Stuff'. Bad People are always going to use the internet, the same as Bad People use cars, the telephone, postal service and even airplanes - but whatever regulations you introduce, it's always going to mean extra hassle for the honest people, while the Bad People just find some way round it.
insignificant sig
Don't ban such activity! Encourage it, and then let the Feds also participate and infiltrate the groups, as they currently do with pedophile rings. A free and open society does not always have to hamper the abilities of the police. Sometimes it fosters an environment where it's easier for the authorities to check things out.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Legislation is all fine and good, but many places have legislation which would prevent this. Canada has some pretty stiff hate crime laws, which would most likely apply. Trying to get every country on the same page is like herding cats (Katz?)
Trying to censor a viewpoint, no matter how wrong the view point is, can not possibly work. If you manage to censor the web (nearly impossible - just go off and start a GeoCities page or my.yahoo page, then another and then another and...) you only move the hateful speech someplace else. Hate didn't originate with the world wide web, its been around for a very long time. It's always managed to find a forum and it always will.
You're better off spending the funds that would be wasted on censorship on free books for libraries (especially grade school and high school libraries) in order to mold peoples brains into being more accepting of others.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
It means that all cities should immediately be put under marshal law because terrorists meet in them. And if your mamby pamby concern for civil rights causes you to balk at this, you must surely agree that Montreal and Halifax (being obvious dens of iniquity) should be put under marshal law. In fact, I think we ought to nuke them, just for good measure, in case any more terrorists are hiding in them.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
My $.02.
Talking negatively about the government leads to illegal anti government activity such as the terrorist attack, as a result freeom of speech must be taken away from all americans.
Well in that case lets all just move to china.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
B'nai Brith, ignoring their name sounding like a Star Trek baddie, are approaching this in the wrong way.
There would be nothing stopping Osama Bin Laden using a server located in a country friendly to their cause, one that considers them 'right'. One mans murdering &$%#wit terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Short of modifying DNS tables for your country or running a statewide filter proxy there'd be little or no way to halt this internet activity.
What they ought to concentrate on is teaching people that joining up with a band of weirdo rebels is simply stupid. Regulations are a good idea if they keep the more impressionable safer, but they only work on something you can actually control.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
I doubt that babelfish would work on the muslim text. I'd really like to know if the B'nai B'rth are correct and that they (Islam Way) are actively seeking members. Maybe it's true, maybe it's propoganda to further the b'nai's cause. Either way, I just can't read it!
.. that there are still people around these days who are stupid enough to believe that this kind of regulation can do any good at all. How many times do they need to be proven wrong, and how often do we need our rights reducing before these stupid (but well intending although angry) people realise they are WRONG?
I fear they will not stop until we reach orwellian levels of monitoring, banning and regulation.
I find it ironic that the US are moving more towards stopping technologies that are evil, (which incidentally is a complete nonsense in itself,) yet none of us would like to live under (for example) the rule of the Taleban. Look again at the Tabeban - all they do is ban, monitor and control things they think are "evil" - just the knod of action we are talking about here.
The world needs to learn that people are good and bad. "Things" are indifferent. Banning or restricting "things" simply hides bad people from view. An interesting side effect that governments find useful from that is that it increases temporarily the perception of safety.
4
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
You would have to be 200 years old to say that. America is one of the countries in the world with the most freedoms, but as we lean more and more about what is going on in our own backyard, those freedoms are being compromised. America is not free.
--why do you think the bus knows exactly where and when to pick you up?
I seriously doubt the authenticity of someone posting on a public noticeboard about joining the Jihad. It's most likely government agents, looking to round up the more gullible terrorists out there. Hopefully they aren't asking them to meet for training out the back of FBI headquarters though - a bit obvious.
In the unlikely event that it is genuine, maybe boards like these could be a source of leads for the hunters...
shut up man
Posts recruiting for bin Laden are, of course, not helpful. It would be better for everyone if they were taken down. But I think everyone here agrees that censorship powers should NOT be given to the government. So how can we (legally) get rid of such?
(1) E-mail the ISP and ask for the message to be taken down. Self-policing of the Net!
(2) Have the government request (without threatening anything) that the messages be taken down.
(3) *ONLY IF SUCH ACTIVITY CONTINUES AND FORMS A PATTERN* _Gently_ suggest that if many messages of this type appear, the ISP could be under suspicion of *aiding the terrorists*. Do *not* even *think* about using any laws as curbs on freedom of speech or privacy. The government *will* be using every possible resource to track these sons of you-know-what down. But we should be sure that such powers do *not* spill over into other areas.
Your friendly neighborhood nitpicker
"B'nai Brith Canada is stepping up its efforts to get legislation passed to ban such Web activity."
... the bad thing is, of course, that these measures (at least if done quickly) will pass with support. The world is still in Hysteria mode and willing to do almost anything to make sure it doesnt happen again -- even remove the rights/privacy of every person.
We had a horrible thing happen recently.. WTC will not be forgotten -- especially since this day is bringing forth issues of civil rights. This is, of course, in Canada but we know it could happen here just as well.
The sentence quoted above is one of the most troublesome ones... to say that you ban some activity is to say that it is illegal -- which is to say that someone will be monitoring data for illegal violations.
Why did everyone push for Carnivore, crypto key escrow (or backdoors), etc? To "save the children!" We are going to see a lot more of this very quickly.. only this time its going to be for "saving America from Terrorism!"
http://english.islamway.com/article.php?sid=110
According to this article, an individual posted the recruitment call in the message section while talking to another individual. They also say the canadian government has dismissed any action.
Why try to actively censor the views of those who are promoting something objectionable? Why not use the money to set up a website that promotes the opposite viewpoint from a more objective and rational perspective? People don't want to be forced into believing something; they wanted to be persuaded. Spending money on persuading people, rather than silencing the opinions of some, and putting ones trust in Truth rather than in fear, is simply much more effective than any reactionary authoritative mandate.
-dcviper
Ummm, err, say what, now?
FBI probes European short-selling-NEWS
Yes, and those stocks were unfortunately traded on European markets, which were indeed open last week.
Well, there is hope.
Hm, it seems like those self-imposed 'real muslims' will succeed on all fronts they're opening: first by uniting all muslims by provoking a massive retaliation against Afghanistan, and then by teasing us devils into shutting down the filthy internet by ourselves. Don't even go there, remember: the Taliban forbid all net access in Afghanistan.
The posters on the forum in question leave traces, just like everyone else, that's some more monitoring targets for the FBI/CIA. Only this time, don't lose attention.
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
If anyone says "I believe in the first amendment, BUT..." that person probably, at their core, doesn't. People ranting against hate crimes often fall in this camp.
First, explicit incitement to riot is NOT protected by the first amendment. If a website picks some day and advocates some awful murderous thing on that day, I'm sure the FBI can legally take them out.
Also, anyone involved in posting on a website or running one leaves a massive electronic trail, and if indeed is at some level involved, would make it vastly easier in my opinion to identify and locate. If there is a credible hate group out there, use their own web dealings to ID the members etc...
With search engines, the amount of logs kept by web sites and isps, it's hard for me to figure out how running a website is a huge plus and not a gigantic potential liability for these hate groups. It that allows infiltration, monitoring, and detection. What's easier for the CIA to penetrate, a group of 10 planning in Afghanistan or an irc chat room? It's also even harder to see what banning this kind of speech would productively do, as it would do nothing to stop any actual use of the Internet for planning horific acts.
It's a jewish organization too that was suing Yahoo in France. You know, "they" can't be wrong, "they" were mass murdered.
You can't say anything about jewish orgs, because then you're accused of antisemitism. In the mean time, Ariel Sharon is *assassinating* -- by his own admission! -- Palestinians.
Do we see B'nai Brith or UEJF asking for the censorship of conservative Israëli newspapers or websites, no I don't think so.
Dont get me wrong, I hate muslim fanatics as much as the next atheist guy, and arabs don't have a monopoly on dangerous loonies.
Ariel Sharon is the biggest threat to peace in the middle east, and maybe in the whole world, after Bin Laden.
"Islamway is in no way responsible for the content of postings by private individuals", the notice (on Islamway website) said.
From slashdot:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
From a lawyers view, what is the difference?
Before we all jump to any conclusions, read islamway's response first. If Timothy McVeigh had posted to a slashdot discussion about the right to bear arms and started recruiting young libertarians, would people have called for slashdot to be shut down?
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
It seems that the Islam Way is american as well. A quick lookup on them shows theat they are based in michigan as well.
Billing Contact:
Islamic Assembly of North America, IANA islamwaysite@hotmail.com
3588 Playmouth Rd
PMB #270
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
US
7345280006
And ARIN reports that their IP is American as well
Dialtone, Inc. (NETBLK-DIALTONEINTERNET-2)
4101 SW 47th Ave Suite 101
Davie, FL 33314
US
So, looks like the FBI has more jurisdiction here.
You know, I really don't understand the logic of banning such internet activity. Terrorism is pretty much illegal in the first place, so if someone posing as a tourist in Canada anonymously posts such a message, what are they going to do? Send the Mounties to Afganistan to arrest him for an illegal posting? By the time investigators figure out who it was, the guy is long gone! Do they not see the stupidity in having such a law? It's not like this kind of posting is also a popular teenage prank or anything. Banning such activity will not do a DAMN thing to curtail terrorism.
B'nai B'rith, while a good organization, with good goals, is misguided in this attempt.
The problem is similar to that of Congress- Older people, without great knowledge of technology, and without being properly informed by people in posession of greate technological prowess.
I haven't been belonged to a B'nai B'rith congregation in years, or else I would call them and write them pointing out their error.
Sorry, but I find your opinion disturbing. The fact that some people can actually entertain the notion that human sentiment can be changed by "rules" makes me feel less safe in this world. Please take care - such negative beliefs about humanity have a tendency to become self-fulfilling prophecies
The Web is only a means of expression of the feelings and opinions of people, yes, real live human beings - yes, organic biochemical aggregations exhibiting emotion.
Personally, I'd rather see the diversity of opinions and mind-sets being expressed out in the open, rather than being suppressed by paranoid authorities. In my profession as an alternative health therapist, I deal daily with the devastation caused by people who continually suppress their feelings until they break out in destructive ways.
As I've said in other posts, the real answer to overcoming evil in this world is to probe to its underlying causes - political, social, economic, psychological etc, and educate and empower people to heal and overcome the underlying pain which causes destructive manifestations.
Nothing but a process of education, instilling in people from an early age a sense of local and global accountability for their actions, desires and choices will make any real progress in preventing any future tragedies.
Lastly, in answer to your 'IP theft' point, let me say that IP laws add to the global scarcity consciousness, which is a major cause of crime and war. Isn't it time we recognised the immense human benefits that can come from the freeing up of information?
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
The Slashbox links to the CISC (Criminal Intelligence Service Canada), but the article text refers to CSIS (Canada Security Intelligence Service). Here is the real CSIS site.
Unfortunately, this is like so many gun control laws we have here in the States. They mean well, but in most (not all) cases, they limit the rights of the law-abiding, while the law-breaker could give a fig.
.gif files all under the guise of an online flower shop.
While I understand the desire behind such legislation, I think it's a bit misguided. Once again, we assume that the bad guys will be deterred by legislation. They are going to be deterred by enforcement.
This particular legislation, governing website content, is going to be very tough to enforce. Especially when it is so easy to set up your own server, have restricted areas, imbed messages in
Perhaps a better solution is to take advantage of the web's openess and freedom and set up a few stings. Yeah, that sucks too, but not as much as having joe government approving my content.
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
In the aftermath of the US tragedy, we all need to ask ourselves one question: Are the western nations a bit TOO open-minded and freedom loving?
... Osama bin Laden has said in past interviews (and he still maintains) that he is just the "instigator" and the actual work is carried out by "Allah". For all we know he is telling the truth ... he was probably not "physically" involved in the US tragedy but he certainly did "instigate" other people to do it on their behalf.
... the Slashdot kind is good ... the religious kind (in any form) is bad. They might claim to be just a discussion board but does that absolve them of the responsibility that any editorial faces, namely keeping out race, hatred, intolerance, etc out of the discussions. IMHO, it does not ....
... even if it hurts us in the short term, in order to gain normalcy and for the bigger good of society and the generation to come. If we don't take action now, we are just setting up our future generations for a life of strife and misery ...
...
Consider this
Similarly, is it possible that the Canadian site is just a "conduit" for terrorists? Political activism can either be good or bad
As society is becoming more and more barbaric there may be a time when we need to impose certain restrictions on our freedom
Just my 2c
Two-hundred-ten years of American history under the Bill of Rights show that one can protect public safety without putting limits on free expression.
I don't know if there is an equivalent of the First Amendment under Canadian law, but I hope they consider the example of their neighbor to the south before they punish their citizens for what they say.
I find it quite hypocritical that the sentiment on Slashdot seems to be that it is OK to bomb innocent civilians because they were celebrating about this tragedy, and on the other hand that it's not OK to arrest individuals who celebrate it online. Perhaps it's only because the "kill 'em all" sentiment was expressed closer to the tragedy, when less rational thought was being produced.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Anyone who agrees to be recruited for or recruits for bin Laden is conspiring to commit murder. What if the Cosa Nostra advertised openly for hit men? At the very least, arrest them all for racketeering, let them try to find a jury that won't lock them away for the maximum.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
You're right. Last week's tragic events couldn't have taken place without Osama Bin Laden cowardly stealing Dylan Klebold's intellectual property!
Note: I tried to register but I always failed !
..
.. so the person meant that army excersises will be a way to proove who is the coward and who is the brave !!
..
Email me if you want : wael@islamway.com
Hello,
I read your post on SlashDot and I'd like for the sake of truth to clarify things to you
Bna'i Brith attack on IslamWay.com was very strange, as a member and volunteer of IslamWay.com team I assure that the main objective of this website is teaching people about Islam, and we have nothing to do with politics.
Then what's the story of terrorism ?!
In IslamWay.com discussion board we've more than 4000 Member and at the time of the media attack there was more than 28,000 posts!! Bnai Brith didn't only take one of the posts but even took a statement out of context to proove that IslamWay.com is a terrorist website !
Although a service provider is not responsable for what third parties write in their website, all the media started to attack IslamWay.com ( see : http://www.islamway.com/NYPost.htm )
Was it really Invitation to kill others ?
The discussion post was between two people who were fighting each others by words, one called the other one that you are a hypocrite, so the other one was very angry so he told him -I'm just giving the meaning- : Let's see who is the hypocrite, Come with me to Afghanistan and let's train ourselves there
Which is a proof that this person is a sick person or at least a one with a child mind !
The people who attacked IslamWay.com based on the Discussion Board post didn't clarify that it was mentioned in the discussion board, and they just said a post on IslamWay.com
They didn't mention it's a fight between two people but they mentioned that it's an invitation !
My message to the people who read the fake stories about IslamWay.com to go and visit it, and judge by your self.
http://english.islamway.com
Thanks,
Wael
I'm sure there are many others (infact, I know there are), I just can't remember them at the moment.
"Faith is the last resort of a desperate man" - Me
Islam Way uses slash. Good work.
sig?
not only would banning such activites mean a source of intelligence infomation is gone (arguably) but why should we let them win - taking away our channels of free speech and communication would mean they had won yet another victory.
It has won them nothing. We manage to screw it up perfectly ourselves.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
you're black, I guess....
Now, there is no difference....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
to join Ossama bin Laden.
A poster on an internal message board did. In fact, he didn't solicit for volunteers, he just said that Muslims should go and fight in Afghanistan.
So I guess if the same suggestion is made on slashdot it should be shut down as well?
So first, everyone relax. It wasn't like the owner of this site was actively recruiting.
Second, it sounds like the Canadian government isn't interested in pursuing the issue, which is a relief.
And third, I don't see anyone pulling for net regulation when assholes in our own country start shouting, "Nuke them sand-niggers back into the stone age! I'm gonna get me one tonight!"
As a brief side note: I'd like to remind everyone that the people of Afghanistan live in terror of the Taliban. Please think of the ways they're suffering before blindly calling for their annihilation.
I don't get this. I just don't see how the two are inter-connected. Someone help me out, because I must be an idiot. How does this:
The Jewish group B'nai Brith Canada is calling for stricter regulation of hate-related material on the Internet following Tuesday's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
fit with this:
However, last year the CSIS issued a report in which it warned that "computers, modems and the Internet are enhancing the operational capabilities of terrorist organizations." The report cautioned, "Terrorists have improved their use of advanced technologies to protect and expedite lines of communication and funding, both nationally and internationally; this has increased the chances that planning for the next terrorist attack may not be detected."
Here's my question: How do these connect? My understanding is this: Hate groups want their filth seen by as many people as possible, so they put it up in the open. Terrorist groups, execpt possibly in the area of recruiting, would want to stay as secretive as possible. You don't post your plans to a message board where it can be plainly seen by anyone . Even in the recruiting aspect, wouldn't publicly posting recruitments be counter-productive? "To join (Known Terrorist Group), meet at the corner of The Feds are Waiting For You Avenue and You Idiot Street in Montreal." Wouldn't this just make certain movents of the groups more traceable, even under current law? (There would certainly be probable cause).
As far as terrorist communication via the internet goes, wouldn't most communications be done via direct e-mail? And tracking these communications would require serious privacy violations. (On a lighter note, it would be strange if a terrorist group was brought down because it got caught spamming)
So, in summary, here's my point. I don't see how restricting speech (as despicable as most agree that it is) has any effect on a terrorist organization. This may be just because I am an idiot, so feel free to explain it to me.
Confused and waiting for someone smart to explain it all to me,
-- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
If you hadn't noticed yet there are quite a few people who post on slashdot. These people in many cases have differing opinions. While one person may say "kill em all!" another more moderate person may post in the defense of free speech online. This is not hypocrisy. These are TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE voicing their opinions. I hate to deprive you of your righteous indignation since you seem to be enjoying it so much but your allegations are completely groundless.
- Toby
You don't want to dislike someone of a minority (hate crimes)
We have every right to hate people. I hate you, but I won't be arrested for it unless I commit some other crime.
You don't practice religion in a public place.
Crashing a plane into a skyscraper is not "practing religion". If you think it is, then yes, religion is banned.
You don't do anything that might inadvertantly cause someone else to do something stupid (fear of litigation)
Selling Microsoft products encourages people to use Microsoft products (something stupid). I think we just had a court case proving this is legal.
You don't say how much you hate the current government
Umm.. that's the purpose of voting. You get to show how much you hate the current government. Last time I knew, it was still legal.
Someone had to play the devil's advocate...
Free unix account: freeshell.org
to the original National Post article (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/national/story.h tml?f=/stories/20010816/648534.html) is here. (http://www.islamway.com/eng/html/article.php?sid= 110&mode=thread&order=0)
I am pro-lifechoice.
With such a good track record I think WE ALL have room to be concerned. The only thing SURE about the government is that, AT SOME TIME IT WILL ATTEMPT TO ABUSE AND DISREGARD YOUR RIGHTS.
"I really don't see anything wrong with that, if you are a criminal you don't deserve to have the same freedoms as law abiding citizens."
Innocent until proven guilty, I will not bother to repost the thomas jefferson quote.
"Further, such an approach would improve the signal to noise ratio by ensuring that communication was routed through approved vendors who would dispose of the chaff and provide us with the grain. Look at all of the misinformation that was spread on Slashdot during the days following the attacks. Most of that came from sources like Indymedia while the conventional outlets actually bothered to check the facts."
Pre-screened sanitized news, from an APPROVED vendor, sounds like what you get on an airline, nothing that could be disturbing, nothing that might upset you, or cause you to think for that matter you DAMN SHEEP. You sound like you should move to Cuba, or China, where things can be controlled to your satisfaction.
That kind of please let the government take care of me attitude disgusts me. I really hope you are not a US citizen.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
B'nai B'rith wants laws to make it more difficult for terrorist organizations to reveal themselves, finger potential new members, and perhaps spill important information about upcoming events? Did I read that right?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress
of grievances.
This does NOT conflict with current case law. You can't scream fire in a crowded movie theater, you can't threaten to kill someone, a paper can't without ANY factual basis do a story on someone calling them child pornographers etc...
Having worked on a newspaper before, the first amendment does not (according to court rulings) protect libel, incitement to riot, and obscenity. All these restrictions are pretty commonsensical though and hardly place an undue burden. The courts generally take the first amendment very seriously and place a high standard on proving the above mentioned items.
Libel makes a distinction between a private person and a public person, and with public people, the standard for proving libel is very high (I think accuser has to show that the publisher knowingly knew it was false etc...) Tabloids publish blatantly untrue stories (they claim any semi-intelligent person would know they're untrue) and though people sue on libel grounds, they nearly always win.
Many people even think the incitement to riot standard is sometimes held too high. A court of appeals in the US recently held that an anti abortion site which listed the names and addresses of doctors (and even put a line through those names after one was murderred) was legal. The message of the site was very clear, but they didn't explicitly state it.
Does anyone find it ironic here that allowing Jews to slaughter others seems to have a real, legitimate, tubthumping moment recently? I mean, after all, forty years ago Jews were in Germany while the Germans were screaming, "RESTRICT THEIR MOVEMENT! THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED! THEY ARE PART OF A SECRET NETWORK!"
Wow. I never thought that Jewish people who had grandparents that they can speak to right now who went through the Shoah would be so apt to kill, herd up, try to destroy others. Most of my Jewish friends would tell me that is has nothing to do with that, and that Jews and Arabs have been enemies forever. I would say that it has everything to do with that. I would say that it all seems to be suspicious that none of these groups can see the light of day... regardless of their pasts. There is one uniting factor of all human tribes, that the propensity of instant violence shows us that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF US IS CIVILIZED. Its amazing. We haven't learned a damn thing. These wars are going to be forever between us.
Only when something like this happens, do the victims of racism show how truly racist they are as well. This should be a real eye opener. Don't get me wrong. This is only an example. Jews are not any more racist than the rest of us, we all have a lot of spite in our hearts for our fellow man. Honestly, its time for mankind to remember what they like about each other, instead of piggybacking on someone else's fight.
Don't feed them please.
According to a top ranking official they can't convince agents that living an Islamic lifestyle for a couple of years is a worthwhile thing to do.
Conversely the terrorists appear to have had little problem living in the US for some months/years...
This kind of activity is already covered under existing conspiracy laws (conspiracy to commit (murder|crime|etc)) so why must we introduce yet another law?
Legislators seem to think that just because the internet is "different" they need to duplicate the law books for it, or maybe they're just trying to find new and novel ways to justify their jobs.
-- iCEBaLM
And, if you look at the numbers, it pretty much is. Of course, we have news broadcasters to keep us feeling at risk (by, for example, making a bigger deal out of a handfull of people dying in a Washinton State earthquake than they made out of 20000+ people dying in an earthquake in India); but stripped of the hype America is an amazing safe place.
-- MarkusQ
Well put, but you know that these folks trained in Florida. I never did like that state. Guilty, all of you are guilty!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It's good to see terrorist use opensource software too. Imagine the MS FUD now.....
Unfortunately, that's not the whole truth either (See my response in this thread, "Re:IslamWay.com = Terrorism ?!")
My son came home today telling me how he was going beat up all the Muslim and Arab kids in school. I guess I have more evidence to convince him that he shouldn't do that.
You shouldn't need evidence at all. Simply remind him that terrorists are bad, not because of their religious or political beliefs, but because they attack innocent people. If your son beats up Muslim and Arab schoolchildren, he is no better than a terrorist himself.
Terrorism springs from blind hatred. If people like your son fall into hatred, terrorism will have won. If he really wants to strike a blow against terrorism, he must treat all people with kindness and respect and judge them on the basis of their own actions, not on what they look like or how they choose to pray. The real weapons against terrorism are not bombs or fists or wiretaps, but decency, generosity, and respect.
I know the only reason I wear a seatbelt is because of legislation...
-- Use your brain, no one else will.
Actually, the B'nai Brith Canada has a point (although they should have addressed it directly).
This is due to the differences in Canadian law, vs. US law.
In Canada, is it legal to fundraise for known terrorist/hate organizations. This is why Canada is a popular staging ground for these organizations (besides our lax immigration laws).
In the US (and the UK), it is illegal to fundraise for terrorist/hate organizations. IRA, KKK and such all cannot legally solicit for funds (though it happens anyways).
Canada, in light of the attack on Tues, is now looking to change this law.
What's interesting about your one-sided post is,
you don't begin to address that Israel gave Sinai to Egypt. Why would an expansionist country do such a thing, at the cost of eradicating several Israeli towns both in Sinai and along the border?
Also, you fail to address how Israel is willing to make nearly all the concessions Arafat asks for, and Arafat still doesn't agree?
You also don't address that it's amazing the Israelis even come to the table, when Arafat's PLO still has on it's charter that their goal is to eradicate all Jews from the land.
I know, I know, you'll say I'm brainwashed, but I think it's nominally interesting that you choose to ignore anything that contradicts your limited world-view.
Thanks anyways.
I am posting anonymously to avoid the certain backlash that I would receive from the pro-censorship forces at B'nai B'rith, and my synagogue.
Unfortunately B'nai B'rith has become increasingly radicalized in recent years. The leadership has moved far to the right wing of the Zionist movement and taken much of the membership and Western Jewry with it.
As a Jew I find this extremely disturbing.
The censorship that B'nai B'rith promotes is almost exclusively against Muslims and Arabs. What happened to fighting for human rights and fighting against bigotry and racism?
B'nai B'rith has instead become an organization that supports human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories (as documented by Amnesty International and others) and promotes bigotry and racism by its knee-jerk reactions against our Muslim and Arab brethren. The IslamWay site, which is a religious education site, is but one example.
While it still does some good disaster relief work, it does not do so in Muslim areas of the world. That kind of work would go a long way to bridging the divide between Muslims and Jews created by the Occupation.
As I understand it, philosopher Jurgen Habermas's work (having to do with post-WW2 reconciliation in Germany) tells us that until you are willing to honestly and openly see any conflict from your opponent's point of view and acknowledge those views as legitimate, then meaningful conflict resolution cannot take place.
Remember, when governments get through censoring the Arabs and the Muslims there's nothing to stop them from coming for us too.
To which, may I add: criminals, as a group, tend to make mistakes; this is largely due to most of them being amateurs. (Talk to any veteran law enforcer: the truly "perfect" crime is a very rare beast, as are people who commit enough crimes to make a living at it. This is even moreso for, say, suicide bombers.) Discussing plans in the open, where police can observe or citizens can observe and relay to police, is one such mistake.
I have no comment either way about most of what you say, but I'll point out that you're right in one respect. During World War 2, the Japanese killed far more Chinese than the Nazis ever did Jews. Yet nobody ever seems to mention that.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Note to moderators: The post I'm responding to is currently at 0 (anonymous coward). Its author is connected with islamway.com, and clarifies its use of the word 'jihad'. Please mod it up so that others can read it.
--------
Thank you for your interesting, well reasoned response. Obviously, we disagree strongly on many points, but I'm heartened to see that even in the emotional wake of recent events, rational, mutually respectful discussion is still possible.
"Brith Canada is stepping up its efforts to get legislation passed to ban such Web activity"
Uhh, isn't terrorism activities banned already? How will making this a law change anything? Terrorists don't care what the laws are, they ignore them.
I think Mr. Colvin is right in that we Americans have some moral housecleaning to do over our treatment of Iraqi civilians. However there is a qualitative difference between US sanctions in Iraq from terrorism.
The US sanctions are aimed at reducing the Iraqi regime's capability to wage war. They coincidentally involve a horrific civilian toll. That's war. By some theories (which I don't fully subscribe to), this is moral though regrettable.
The attack on the WTC was deliberate harm to innocent people, to use the harm of the innocent as an instrument of policy change. That's terrorism. Only a person who sees other human beings purely as tools for his political agenda or whose sense of morality is hopelessly twisted by hatred can accept this.
The aim of US policy is regional stability. That is why we didn't invade Iraq after the Gulf war: there was no way to lay waste to Iraq without leaving a power vacuum or engaging in the massive political, military and cultural restructuring of Iraq into a US puppet state. Yes there is a certain venality to this policy: we need regional stability so we have a stable oil supply. On the other hand, the consequences of regional destabilzation offered by an militarily expanding Iraq armed with weapons of terror and mass destruction are terrifying: prolonged, widespread and bloody warfare over oil is among them. So the policy of containing Iraq is not entirely venal.
The sanctions policy achieves a kind of artificial strategic stalemate in which Hussein's regime is propped up but defanged. I think the reason this policy has lasted so long is that nobody can think of a better one. To simply withdraw sanctions and hope for the best is almost tempting, given the certainty of their humanitarian impact; but we don't know the affect of a resurgent and militarily agressive Iraq under Mr. Hussein. It could be worse. Morally, I think it amounts to the best thing we can think of; it's a moral and humanitarian disaster, but the alternatives look worse.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Morality is nice, in all areas (food, society, religion...). It's when one person forces their ideas of morality on others that things tend to go bad, not the moral idea itself.
So what constitutes forcing your views on others and them forcing their views on you?
Force of law?
Social persecution?
Preaching in public?
Being Visible?
Existing?
For so many people, other people merely existing constitutes an attack on their own moral ideals. But those same people feel they deserve the freedom to preach their own morals wide and loud, or worse.
What will it take to let make people recognize the reflexitivity of the situation, your rights == my rights, and live with it?
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
It's amazing what happens when you reverse a complaint.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
On the one hand we are supposed to force Israel to stop defeding itself against terrorism and other hand the US now believes it is its holy fucking manifest destiny to wage war on the whole world in general and no one in particular.
I'm suprised it took you wingnuts only a week to blame an attack by Arabs on the US, on the Jews. Why don't pull your antisemitic heads out of your asses and read what OBL has to say which is to punish moderate Islamic states like Saudi Arabia for allowing the infidel US on it's soil. He can't go after the Sauds directly because it would mean the destruction of his own family so he goes after the US who trained and armed him.
But please continue, go back to blaming the Jews.
in response to (1):
censorship by popular opinion is no different than censorship by government.
in response to (2):
a threat is implicit in a government request.
in response to (3):
is this 'gentle suggestion' not a threat in and of itself?
this is censorship - imposing your own guideline on what constitutes free speech on another. whether it is the government that practices censorship or an ISP under coercion has nothing to do with the core issue.
Maybe the B'nai Brith should be more concerned with what they cannot see. Sites such as islamway.com are tirelessly monitored by the NSA, and provide a useful way to identify trends in the behavior of extremist groups such as bin Laden's. I can't believe the B'nai Brith doesn't find it useful to be aware of the views of groups, such as those that provide content for islamway.com. In my opinion it is ever more dangerous to not know what the sentiment is amongst extremist groups, whether they are islamic fundamentalists or white supremacists, etc... Information is a very good thing and will be the greatest tool we have in combatting and preventing acts as atrocious as those comitted last Tuesday. "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."
Uh... Bnai B'rith controls Hollywood? How? Or is this another one of those "massive Jewish conspiracy" posts from a Christian Identity idiot?
I'd suggest that you look a little more closely at why you've been called an anti-semite in the past. I am opposed to the current Israeli government and I'm not fond of Bnai B'rith and the way they overplay the anti-semitism card, but your post indicates to me that it probably does apply in your case. Claiming bullshit like "The jews think that they own the planet and therefore push their own agenda without regard for other concerns." makes for a pretty good indication that you are, in fact, an anti-semite.
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
This is the text of their statement located at http://english.islamway.com/article.php?sid=110
h tml?f=/stories/20010816/648534.html) alleging that Islamway.com website is "used to recruit Islamic terrorists" and "calls on Muslims to train for holy war at paramilitary camps run by mujahedin fighters in Afghanistan." ........ Continue
Islamway.com has come under attack from the Canadian chapter of the B'nai B'rith Jewish organization, better known as the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL generated a story reported in the Ottawa National Post today (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/national/story.
The story links Islamway.com to the case of Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian living in Montreal, who was arrested on the Canadian border with Washington state carrying explosives. The report states: "Terrorist organizations have been making increasing use of the Internet to further their violent agendas. They use computers to communicate, spread propaganda, fundraise and organize operations. Canada may be becoming a base for such cyber-terrorism because of its technological advancement, refugee policies, diverse immigrant population and weak counter-terrorism laws."
No representative from Islamway.com or the Islamic Assembly of North America was contacted for comment, and the only quote in the story is from the executive vice-president of the B'nai B'rith organization in Canada, saying "It is a very frightening thought that there is a Web site situated in Canada that is recruiting for people to participate in jihad."
The entire story is based upon a posting by a private individual on Islamway's English language discussion board, in the context of an ongoing dialogue between two individuals. There are over 28,000 postings on the discussion board, with more than 34,000 visitors to the page everyday, and over 4,000 active members. Islamway is in no way responsible for the content of postings by private individuals, anymore than CNN.com or Yahoo! are responsible for the postings found on the discussion boards on their sites.
The B'nai B'rith met with Canadian authorities today to take action against Islamway. A reporter from an Ottawa television station conveyed to Islamway staff that the Canadian authorities have dismissed the issue as baseless, and B'nai B'rith has refused any further comment.
We urge all members and supporters of Islamway to forward the included letter to the editor of the National Post, criticizing the paper for its negligent approach to this story; relaying, without any investigation, charges made by the highly subjective B'nai B'rith organization against Islamway, and not seeking any contact or interview with the staff of Islamway itself.
We cannot allow these kinds of attempts to restrict our da'awah and slander our website. Please support Islamway's effort to correct this situation.
WE REQUEST THAT ALL BROTHERS AND SISTERS SEND A LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEWSPAPER @ :
letters@nationalpost.com
And Also to : The Writer of the article : sbell@nationalpost.com
A Sample Letter can be found at : http://www.islamway.com/replyto.htm
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
And the greed in which the MPAA is going after DECSS is typically jewish, too.
And the greed in which the MPAA is going after DECSS is typically jewish, too.
Glad to see there's no reason to call you an antisemite. Look, if you're going to bitch about Bnai B'rith being oversensitive about antisemitism, you could at least hide your own antisemitism a little.
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
You still prove that by citicizing jews, you end up being branded as antisemite.
> It can't? Thousands of years of the rule of law seems to be
> keeping people in line generally. People seem to be getting the
> idea that murder is wrong.
Are you really trying to imply that people think that murder is wrong because it's illegal? I think you have that backwards. Ethics should drive laws. When laws drive ethics, you end up with the very attack that started this whole discussion.
> Of for fuck's sake, had I known this I would not have responded.
If the original poster's profession would have put you off, you're rather biased, and perhaps you should have stayed silent. If you need something that shallow to take me seriously, then rest assured that I'm a computer technician, which is likely on your list of "approved" professions.
> Education is always touted as the great savior, it isn't.
> There are plenty of very well educated people who are just inherently evil.
Wrong side of the analysis, sir. It doesn't matter that there are well-educated evildoers, because it's much harder for evildoers to influence those who are well educated, so education can very much make the difference. How many of the terrorists that perpetrated Tuesday's attacks were well educated, do you think? I'd warrant that their education was a bit skewed.
> Actually, a major crackdown on civil liberties would accomplish
> the same. If people are just not allowed to do stupid things then
> stupid things won't happen.
This would be awesomely funny if I didn't think you really believed it. As such, it's just really sad. Last I checked (and yes, experts on terrorism agree), cracking down on civil liberties causes terrorism. Why do you think the U.S. exists in the first place? Police states tend to cause dissidents, for reasons that are only obvious to those who think about it.
> Translation: I don't like having to pay for stuff. I'd really
> like to be able to steal it without any penalties. Lets be
> realistic, no scarcity means no profit. No profit means no stuff.
Despite that fact that I agree that IP isn't all bad, this is an horrific overextension of economic theory. Saying that no scarcity means no profit is flat-out wrong (ask any farmer (or for that matter, anyone who sells commodities) about how scarcity and price works). Saying no profit means no stuff implies that the only profits are monetary, which is also flat out wrong. Go read a book on economics before you toss off about how capitalism works. And, in case you think to attack my analysis because I'm a computer worker, I've got advnaced degrees in economics as well, so I know of what I speak.
> Yeah, you can hold up free software as an example of what can happen
> even if there is no profit, but free software is shit compared to its
> proprietary counterpart and everyone knows it. Stop trying to pull
> the wool over everyone's eyes.
Again, you should try research before you start typing. "Everyone" doesn't "know" that free software is worse than proprietary software in all cases. There are many free packages that suck, but there are many that work better than commercial packages. Apache is a free web server, but it's running more than two thirds of all web sites (the second place entry, Microsoft's IIS, has less than 25% market share). BSD UNIX is also free, but there seem to be just a few fans of it. Parhaps you aren't familiar with these packages because you don't use them in your job, but it's proof that your scope is very limited to make such blanket statements.
Virg
link me?
[o]_O
>Not accepting others is not on the same level as blowing a
> building and killing thousands of people...
What starts with not accepting others ends in blowing up a building and killing thousands of people. The only difference is where it falls in the time line. The hijackers were at one time children, and if they hadn't been raised to think of the US as the enemy, they wouldn't have been willing to die to hurt the US. Censorship (of ideas about US citizens being people like them) turned them into killers.
Virg
The B'Nai Brith Anti Defamation league is simply a group who agressively pursues anyone who dares contradict Israeli propaganda.
Here in Australia, they claimed the Wesley Mission, a large church group who is well known for doing work with homeless people, prostitutes, gay folk, and anyone else (i.e, they are fairly well known for being non descriminatory), was `racist' because a minister expressed sympathy for the Palestinians after an attack. With an Australian sense of humor, I think most people reading about it found it quite hilarious, but if you're on the recieving end of their lawyers, I imagine you wouldn't.
This fear is what keeps some of the more agressive Israel supporters in their positions. There's a well known Australian businessman who continually funds development of land on the west bank. There's a fair few people who would feel fairly uncomfortable knowing their money is going towards illegally expanding this country, who supports both torture and landmines, beyond its boundaries. Bnai Brith is designed to intimidate people who oppose these actions and the people who support them.
No, I don't have anything to tell about France or French people.
The only thing is that European press where he gets his information is EXTREMELY anti-Israel. It is especially true in French-speaking countries (I read some of the France Press news agency's articles in English among other sources). Reasons?
1) There are a lot of Muslims in France - several millions;
2) France is desperately trying to displace ex-USSR as "The biggest friend of Arabs"; this is why they scream histerically about "Israeli aggression", even though it's clear that Arafat started the new war there. They hope to get to these markets by lobbying Muslim interests and taking their side in the Arab-Israeli conflict (hopefully, you don't forget who has built a nuclear reactor for Saddam in the beginning of eighties).
3) I don't think French in general are anti-Semitic, but France did not have a real denazification after the WW2. Even more, some famous French Nazi criminals were saved and harbored by the Catholic church.
And this is the same France that was in Vietnam, Algiers and so on.
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
Why are so many people so foolish and short sighted? Banning free communication does nothing to thwart or eliminate evil deeds. I hate what terrorists have done to us as much as the next person, but we can't use that as an excuse to attack the public. So what if someone is asking for voluneers to become terrorists, I would think the fact that this was done in a public forum would provide law enforcement with valuable leads. Adding restrictions on what people can say because a few nuts are out there doesn't do anything to stop or kill the nuts, it just disenfrancishes the rest of us.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
My friend, I think that you have misinterpereted me. Please understand that I understand the truth, seen it with my own eyes. I understand what the Jews want implicitly, and I am one of the few Christians in the world that knows THE TRUTH. But I am not an Anti-Semite. Nor am I even remotely anti-Palestinian. If anyone had even thought about taking my homeland, I would be militant too. There are Americans that care about the Palestinians, and want Palestinian independnce. We are not going to kill to get it though. We have propped up killers on both sides too long. We (Americans) have made these monsters, now we have to stop it all. The Arabic people have suffered under racism enough, but even Christian Americans are liable to violence under these circumstances. WE ARE NOT A CHRISTAN NATION THOUGH. The Muslim world MUST understand that. That is not our charter. That is not our way. However, the racist tactics that we are all using are doing no good. I would hate to see a Holy War for all of us. It is not the will of God, no matter the name.
Furthermore, ten times as many people died from normal causes than from war-related causes during WWII (300-million). Also, 10,000 people died from normal non-terrorist causes in the U.S. last Tuesday.
[The average person lives 28,000 days, so every day, one on 28,000 people dies, under slightly simplified assumptions.]
Nicolas MONNET wrote: ... do you really think I'm not aware of history? FYI I've met holocaust survivors.
>Excuse me
The holocaust is a hoax.
-nukebuddy
If you notice there is different content for the arabic and english area at Islamway.com. Look at the images all the way down. Wonder why they do that?
I wonder, how many of the posters here that object to the loss of our civil liberties are also the ones applauding the foiled attempts of the NRA?
My karma is -1 because I don't use AC posting. LOL.
"Oh poor me!, how can those awful bigots say that the attack on Jew York city is a consequence of the support given by the Jewnited States to "Israel" in their campaign of genocide against the Palestinians?"
I was wondering when you were going to use the "GENOCIDE" arguement, nope I don't buy it, if Isreal maintains if current rate of Palestinian deaths it will take about a zillion years to irradicate them.
I'm not an idiot! I'm the village Halfwit
Well, at best, it's on a par with saying that Arabs are fanatical, Americans are arrogant, French people are cowards, English people are snobs...
It's a generalisation that treats an entire cultural/ethnic group as if they shared an identical worldview, which is dangerous thinking.
Saying "some jews are greedy" would be a little less antisemitic, IMHO. Although it still carries the nasty implication that you think they're intrinsically greedier than whichever ethnic/cultural group you're using as a benchmark.
The first article appears to be have been removed, so use Google's cached copy of the page instead.
Reducto ad Absurdum. I'm not even going to grace this with an answer.
> No it isn't [much harder for evildoers to influence those who are well educated]
Lawyers regularly dismiss jurors during Voire Dire for no other reason than the fact that they are college graduates. The reason given my by my lawyer friends is that the higher the level of education, the less likely the juror is to be swayed by emotional testimony. Enough said.
> Which experts agree? You are just making wild accusations without any shred of evidence.
Well, the CIA, for one. If you need direct quotes, respond to this and I'll give you links to keep you busy for a few hours reading.
> Are you claiming that the founding fathers were terrorists? How many innocent lives did they take en route to establishing America?
Not only am I claiming it, the British colonial government claimed it as well. When the Sons of Liberty decided to throw the Boston Tea Party, they dressed as Indians, boarded the British merchantmen and overpowered the crews, and dumped the tea into the harbor. Does a sailor whose only crime is being a night crewman on a British ship qualify as "innocent"? How about the Tory-sympathetic farmer whose farms were burned by Washington's troops so the Brits wouldn't have anything to eat? Lastly, you should consider that blowing up military ships and burning a British fort to the ground in the middle of the night qualify as terrorist acts, even though civilians weren't involved. If it isn't, how do you describe the attack on the U.S.S. Cole?
> You are holding up farmers as examples of savvy businessmen?
Most farmers are very savvy businessmen, because the ones who aren't can't make a living farming. Don't be a bigot.
> If it weren't for government subsidies there would be no farmers.
> Why do they need government subsidies? Because the food they grow
> is in abundance.
This is nuts. And you claim to have a degree in economics? The government subsidies are in place to encourage large farms not to overproduce so that smaller farms can survive. To say that removing the subsidies would eliminate farmers is lunacy. It would eliminate small farms, as large farms, which can take advantage of economies of scale in shipping and storage, push prices down to the point where smaller farms are no longer profitable. This is precisely what happened in the crude oil industry, where such economic controls were absent.
> The only profit is monetary.
Again, you got a degree in economics? Two words: market share. There's more than money involved, even in capitalism. Many businesses give up profits every day for things like market share, public opinion and other such things. In the wake of the attacks, and the outpouring of assistance from corporations, I'm surprised you still can't see past the balance sheet.
> Sure you do buddy, I bet. You are just dripping with degrees aren't you?
MS Econs. from Rutgers University, 1991, and AssSci in Physics, same institution and year. And by the way, up yours for the implication.
> > Apache is a free web server, but it's running more than two thirds of all web sites.
> No it isn't. Just because Slashdot claims its so doesn't make it reality.
> I don't understand why people don't question the mainstream media outlets
> more often.
OK, how about Netcraft? Or Sendmail (old link, but you seem to imply that free software never has or had good market penetration)? Or Forbes? Apache has been the mainstream web server since 1991, and has just recently lost some (but not much) of its market to IIS. To quote, I don't understand why people don't question the mainstream media outlets more often.
> Neither does anyone else. They don't contain enough functionality to be of use for any actual work.
I refer to Apache for a web server and Sendmail as a mail transfer agent, and I'll let your own statment bury you.
> Thats why the stuff is distributed with the disclaimer that "This software is provided without any warranty of any kind, not even an assurance of fitness for use" or some other such fancy way of saying that it doesn't really work all that well.
When was the last time you read the EULA for Windows? This exact phrase comes from the Windows 2000 EULA. See if it sounds familiar.Telling, no? Oh, and the limited warranty mentioned is that they'll return your money or send you a new copy if the medium is damaged (scratched CD or damaged diskettes).
You may want to try reading up on the whole open-source movement. For that matter, you might want to review everything you said here for accuracy.
Virg
Oh please, out of YOUR country?
I'm a North Carolinian and proud of it, but your lack of historical perspective is appalling. Yes Sinai was an Egyptian land, taken in a time of war, and unlike most spoils of war, negotiated a return after the end of conflict.
Israel is not a representative democracy (republic?) as America attempts to be. Israel's system of government is based on emulation of the British.
Thank you, come again.
Hey - why ban it when you can use it to your advantage?
If you ban postings of the like then you do not know whats going on. What we need to do is let them all post and then use the information to help protect us and prevent anything in the future.
The website that the article in wired was talking about is called islamway.com. It seems to use Slashcode.