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.""

Comments

Bad People

[MartyJG]

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.

Re:Bad People

[mpe]

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.

The most obvious way around it is to use some other comminications technique.
e.g. there is plenty of concern about firearms in the US, the result being that the hijackers used a different weapon...

Re:Bad People

[Twylite]

Or, as is more obvious in South Africa, the government has made it more difficult to own or acquire personal firearms, which means that the hijacker with the illegal personal firearm has no resistance.

Re:Bad People

[Chundra]

The most obvious way around it is to use some other comminications technique.

As a Bad Person and ringleader of a midwestern Bad Person Underground Society Cell, I couldn't agree more. For the last several years we have been using carrier pigeons. We are currently training squirrels to provide ground communications, and are extremely happy with the results so far.

Don't ban it - encourage it!

[Happy Monkey]

...weblog that solicited for volunteers to join Ossama bin Laden. ... B'nai Brith Canada is stepping up its efforts to get legislation passed to ban such Web activity.

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.

Re:Don't ban it - encourage it!

[zerocool^]

...let the Feds also participate and infiltrate the groups, as they currently do with pedophile rings

I'm not sure i feel comfortable with you comparing Islam to pedophile rings.

Re:Don't ban it - encourage it!

[ichimunki]

Encourage it, and then let the Feds also participate and infiltrate the groups

As long as you can assure me that the Feds are strictly prevented from engaging in entrapment, are not participating in promoting the evil activity in order to prove that they are not Feds, and as long as there are strict penalties for the agents who cross the line. I dislike the idea of government dollars being used to promote or encourage terrorism or pedophilia, even if it is part of an attempt to eliminate that stuff.

I think my favorite fictional work related to this is "A Scanner Darkly" by Philip K. Dick. I also recall a recent article in a local weekly related to the idea that cops, in their efforts to bust street prostitutes are engaging in unthinkable behavior in order to get to a point where they have evidence enough to convict the prostitute (e.g. the hookers usually have some test that the cops have to pass, like performing a light sex act, before they will discuss the actual transaction).

It is a dangerous area to tread, this infiltration stuff. And I would prefer that we rely on attempts to actually convert our enemies to our way of thinking than to simply deprive ourselves of our rights-- that way we'll have fewer enemies and a more attractive way of life.

Re:Don't ban it - encourage it!

[WNight]

Islam, like all religions, seeks to push something distasteful and potentially dangerous on children too young to know any better.

Sounds in many ways like pedophilia...

Religion should be dealt with like sex, perfectly allowable for anyone to do anything they want, as long as it is consented to by all participants, and those participants are over the age of minority.

Re:Don't ban it - encourage it!

[WNight]

Yeah, it is. If I was king for a day ...

I think the age of majority should be based on compotency, and privellage should come with responsibility.

If someone can be sent to war, it's criminal if they can't also vote, drink, etc.

And we all know at least one 16-year old who is more mature than many 30-year olds. Why should they be given less responsibility?

But, in the absence of a better system, and instead of explaining my views on the current one, I thought I'd suggest the use of the system in place. Its replacement, while important, isn't a necessary part of the reform I suggested.

Re:Don't ban it - encourage it!

[greenrd]

Now that's what I call flamebait!!!

I'm an atheist, but your idea is patently ridiculous, as well as an absurd comparison. You can't prevent parents from talking to their kids about religion.

As a vegan with strong ethical views, I would be angry if the government forced me to bring up my child a meat-eater (unless he or she had a medical condition which necessitated eating meat - if there are any). In my personal opinion, neither meat-eating nor veganism is ethically neutral.

So I can see that a religious parent might feel angry if they were forced to bring up their child an atheist or an agnostic. To people with strong views on religion, there are no "neutral" positions.

Re:Don't ban it - encourage it!

[Saeger]

(not-a-flame)

You're both an atheist and an vegan you say? So, you deny the possible, however unlikely, existence of God(s), rather than choose the more logically neutral position of agnosticism; and you deny yourself the tender, juicy, delicious steaks that your canine teeth are in fact adapted for (evolutionary neutral) -- that's fine, more meat for us "belly-size-economizers". :-)

Anyway, more to the point, if there's one thing us humans like to do above all else, it's imposing our self-righteous will on others, especially our children.

The difference here is that our government is set up to NOT allow it to impose much of its will on free people (parents), but as parents are often fond of saying to their kids, "as long as you're living under my roof this is NOT a democracy!"

...as long as you're not raising, say, assassins...have at it! But when your kid rejects your attempt at a vegan indoctrination... don't be a dicktator. :)

Re:Don't ban it - encourage it!

[WNight]

It's not flamebait, it's an opinion. Way to call for censorship.

"You can't prevent parents from talking to their kids about religion."

I didn't claim to be able to.

But the fact that it's impossible to totally stop pedophila and child abuse doesn't mean we don't try.

"So I can see that a religious parent might feel angry if they were forced to bring up their child an atheist or an agnostic."

Yup. And I'm sure a molestor would be upset that he couldn't indulge.

As an aside, you don't "bring a child up athiest", you simply don't bring them up religious and they end up athiest. Athiesm isn't a codified set of beliefs, it's the freedom from religion.

"To people with strong views on religion, there are no 'neutral' positions."

True, but why are the views of an adult more important that the safety of a child?

Re:Don't ban it - encourage it!

[WNight]

I don't think that I implied athiesm is belief in nothing, I said it was the freedom from religion.

IMHO, religion entails a belief in a higher power, and belief in a higher power is a religion (of one, perhaps).

I don't see anything about athiesm that precludes a variety of views in other areas.

Re:Don't ban it - encourage it!

[Col. Panic]

children too young to know any better

That reminds me of this photo I saw while rummaging through footage from the disaster. How old can this kid be? I bet he already knows what a jihad is.

Re:Don't ban it - encourage it!

[greenrd]

So, you deny the possible, however unlikely, existence of God(s), rather than choose the more logically neutral position of agnosticism?

Do you believe in invisible pink elephants hiding in your bedroom? I hope my point is clear.

The difference here is that our government is set up to NOT allow it to impose much of its will on free people (parents), but as parents are often fond of saying to their kids, "as long as you're living under my roof this is NOT a democracy!"

Heheh. True. That's well recognised.

But what I find fascinating is how everyone (except socialists) seems to ignore the fact that democracy does not exist even among intelligent adults in most workplaces (except co-operatives and a few other places). It's as if the idea is too silly to even bring up. Well I don't think it is - I'm personally not particularly interested in making a profit, so if I were to start a business I might make it a non-profit democratic cooperative.

But when your kid rejects your attempt at a vegan indoctrination...

But maybe they won't - I've never heard of a child brought up as a vegan later giving it up. There could be some - but aren't all the surving members of the Phoenix family still vegan?

Fruitless

[eXtro]

There's a lot of things that are posted on the web which are objectionable, depending on your definition of objectionable. There are many things said in small groups of people that are objectionable. There are things said among large groups of people that are objectionable.

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.

You know what this means...

[Omnifarious]

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.

Re:You know what this means...

[Glytch]

Canada reaps considerable benefit from this open border. In order to continue to reap these benefits, Canada is going to finally have to acknowledge that as part of its deal for the open border, it has a responsability to the US to not be a haven for terrorists.

(laughs) And this is exactly the imperial attitude that has caused this whole situation!

Don't you see that the reason a lot of people around the world don't like the US is because the US government likes to throw it's weight around so much? By insisting that other nations "owe" the US something, you're just perpetuating this global climate of resentment. Until the US stops acting like a playground bully, all this will never stop.

Another choice quote:

The US *MUST* show Canada that it should not take this open border for granted. IF that means hermetically sealing it to gain compliance, so be it.

(shakes head) That says it all, really.

Internet Regulation

[onion2k]

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.

Re:Internet Regulation

[sg_oneill]

Considering that this discussion is about what looks like from my quick perusal of the english language pages a fairly friendly missionary/self improvement islam info page, I reeeealy hope we aren't talking about bombing islamic web sites

We haven't gone that far down the road?... have we? When we resort to barbarism Osama wins because he's better at that game that us. That's the secret.... Don't play at violence, play at JUSTICE!

I can't believe...

[MartinG]

.. 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

Re:I can't believe...

[Private Essayist]

"I fear they will not stop until we reach orwellian levels of monitoring, banning and regulation."

Correct. And we recall from 1984 what happens even when they reach Big Brother levels of surveillance: they go after thoughts next.

"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?"

Since these people don't think they have been proven wrong yet, what makes you think they will stop? Even the victims of rights reductions often applaud their freedom being stripped away in the name of safety. If the average person doesn't even get the point, the people seeking to take rights away certainly don't see it.

Politics is a method of self-selecting away those who would actually be qualified to lead.

Unlikely this is real

[shut_up_man]

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

Prosecute, but NOT under any electronic-rights law

[kalamazoo904]

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.

Meet the replacement for "Save the Children"

[Lostman]

"B'nai Brith Canada is stepping up its efforts to get legislation passed to ban such Web activity."

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!"

... 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.

Don't censor out of fear...

[asdhwesd]

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.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to regulate the

[cyberdonny]

stock exchanges instead?:
FBI probes European short-selling-NEWS

Yes, and those stocks were unfortunately traded on European markets, which were indeed open last week.

Re:Excellent

[antek9]

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.

Remember the Yahoo trial?

[Nicolas MONNET]

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.

Re:Remember the Yahoo trial?

[wass]

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.

There is DEFINITELY a difference between being antisemitic and opposing a Jewish group, and many Jews will agree. If you oppose a Jewish group strictly because of the fact they're Jews, however, then that's antisemitism. If you disagree with their policies for a justifiable reason, then it's certainly not antisemitism. However, you have to keep in mind that groups like this are, in a way, obligated to hold to a higher moral standard than others. Why? Because if even a semi-valid reason (and I'm not denying any reasons to be anti-Israeli here) exists for opposing a special group (like B'nai Brith), then antisemites can now justifiy their actions. Instead of appearing to hate someone because they're Jewish, they can hate under the umbrella of a semi-valid reason. If it's a more valid reason, then all the more so. In other words, not all opposition to certain Jewish groups is antisemitic, as you say. But that fact in itself doesn't mean that antisemitism doesn't exist.

Next, to your questioning of Sharon's assassinations. How does this differ from the Palestinian terrorist? The difference is two-fold. Firstly, Israel has an army and police units to (try to) prevent unruly crowds and attacks against random Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority has no such organizations aimed to preserve civilian order. And secondly, the terrorists aim at random targets, usually innocent civilians, while the Israeli assassinations are aimed at specific terrorist threats. It's a deep philisophical argument whether such assassinations are justifiable. If you're damn sure someone's out to kill you, are you entitled to pre-emptively take them out first? John Norton Moore, who directs the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia's law school said, "If one is lawfully engaged in armed hostility, it is not 'assassination' to target individuals who are combatants." and Air Force Col. Charles J. Duncan Jr., also a military lawyer, said, "Contrary to popular belief, neither international law nor U.S. domestic law prohibits the killing of those directing armed forces in war." "Nations have the right under international law to use force against terrorists."

Now regarding antisemitism, it is alive and well. Unfortunately Palestinians are being manipulated by their government to hate all Jews, and even to kill them. Notice in this following quote that it's not even Israelis they're being directed against, it's ALL Jews. I'm an American who's both Jewish and Buddhist. I don't know what I personally did to invoke the hatred of these guys, but when words like these are spoken, especially over radio/TV to massive quantities of people, you bet I'll take a stand against it.

On Oct. 14, 2000, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, Member of the PA appointed "Fatwa Council" and former acting Rector of the Islamic University in Gaza, said this on Palestinian Authority television.
"Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them and those who stand by them they are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the Muslims because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine."

This is just one example, and there are many many more quotes like this. I believe it's highly irresponsible for government and religious figureheads to manipulate public opinions like this. But, as per your questions of antisemitism, quotes like this show it to be more prevalent than you'd perhaps like to think.

Re:Remember the Yahoo trial?

[Pig Hogger]

There is DEFINITELY a difference between being antisemitic and opposing a Jewish group, and many Jews will agree.
If you oppose a Jewish group strictly because of the fact they're Jews, however, then that's antisemitism.
If you disagree with their policies for a justifiable reason, then it's certainly not antisemitism.

The problem is that when the criticism is justified, they still jump on the persecution bandwagon, and since decent people are scared shitless at being branded a nazi, not much people dares to criticise jews. The jews know that, and they therefore think they can get away with murder (which they do in Palestine anyways).

Re:Remember the Yahoo trial?

[wass]

*If* they are indeed the terroriss they're claimed to be, well, yes, killing them might be a solution. Are they really those terrorists? Or are they instead key palestinian authority figures, and targetted to weaken Arrafat's power.

See, this is where the deep philosophical issue stems from. How is one to balance the issues of self-preservation verses accurate justice. It is a legitimate concern that these are key PA figures targetted to weaken Arafat, but it's also a legitimate concern of the Israelis to defend itself against violent terrorist attacks, of which there have already been many.

My impression is that Sharon is playing with fire here, weakening Arrafat (and calling him a terrorsit or a "Bin Laden")

Arafat is (or, at least, was) a terrorist in the past. Remember when all Israeli athletes were killed in the 1972 Olympics? That was the PLO, of which Arafat was in charge. Many many attacks led by PLO against Israel (and also Jordan, ironically) in the past. Maybe in his older years Arafat is seeking peace, but he has had a violent past (as has Sharon as well).

bound to give more legitimacy to the actual terrorist and violent factions of the Palestinian people, which in turn will justify Sharon's violent policy.

Now we're both starting to agree on something. I agree that the cycle of violence will only intensify, and that Sharon doesn't adequately consider the PR of his aggressive "playing with fire" policies. That's why I can only hope that someone like Shimon Peres can step in and take Sharon's place. (Peres is the one who has consistently met with and is trying to meet with Arafat and other Arab delegates. He was also responsible for last-minute cease-fire agreements from Palestine in exchange for Israeli tank withdrawl from various Palestinian towns).

Re:Remember the Yahoo trial?

[SuiteSisterMary]

To this day, it is commonplace for agents running in Germany to be given cover stories of being Jewish, and Jewish names. Then, if stopped by a policeman for so much as not signaling a turn, they need only make an off hand comment about jews being persecuted in Germany, and they'll be sent on their way with a babbling apology. By the same token, disagree with a woman, risk being labed sexist.

Re:Remember the Yahoo trial?

[SuiteSisterMary]

As far as I'm concerned, assassination of leaders should be the first action; kill the fat bastards sending out troops, not the pimplefaced 18 year old grunts who signed up because they like the uniform.

Re:Remember the Yahoo trial?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Uh... where is the proof for these allegations? Sounds to me like another one of those "all-powerful-world-controlling-law-evading-whinin g-parasitic-Jews" theories.

Allegations? Try history. Germany thought the Aryans were the master race. Well, Japan thought that they were the master race. Untermenschen or gaijin; sub-humans or foreign barbarians. Here. Here. Estimated 30 million chinese killed. Here.

Re:Remember the Yahoo trial?

[Pig Hogger]

Not all of us jump on the 'bandwagon'. Some might, but not all. If you would, please, could you provide a quote somewhere of just one instance of a well-reasoned justified critique against a Jewish group, which itself was subsequently criticized, solely on antisemitic accusations.

Myself, having written in a big circulation paper that the jewish-controlled media molds american public opinion into supporting israel, got retributed by a whole editorial page calling me a nazi.

Or that candidate who complained that hearing the jews, one would think that they alone did suffer from genocide. That earned him a blame motion from the legislature he was candidate to.

They're not the only ones getting away with murder. What do you call the Palestinian launching of mortars and firing of rifles at Israelis?

I call that "self-defence". Let's not forget that the jews are the aggressors who came and STOLE Palestine from the palestinians.

The Palestinian police had a number of convicted Palestinian terrorists locked in jails. At the beginning of this recent intifada, dozens of the terrorists were freed from their jails.

What were convicted of? Self defence?

Re:Remember the Yahoo trial?

[wass]

I call that "self-defence". Let's not forget that the jews are the aggressors who came and STOLE Palestine from the palestinians.

Interesting, was that big circulation paper you mentioned in your post as well researched as the above statement? Can you provide a link to that paper, if possible? Do you really believe that? The Jews stole Palestine? What source do you get your news and history from?

Firstly, there was an already a significant Jewish population living in Palestine. During the early 1900's, more Jews (as well as Arabs) started immigrating to Palestine. They bought uncultivated undeveloped land at first, and then started to purchase cultivated land. However, at no point did they attempt to displace Arabs. Large amounts of land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus, and Beirut. David Ben-Gurion, the 1920's Labor leader, said, "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."

Arabs started complaining about Jewish land acquisitions, and the British Peel Commission determined. Arab complaints were unfounded. It said, "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased....there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land." In his memoirs, King Abdullah of Transjordan said, "It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping."

In fact, the prices the Jews paid for the land were exorbitant. in 1944, the typical arid or semiarid acre in Palestine was sold around $1000-$1100, while rich soil in Iowa was selling for $110 per acre. By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to 463,000 acres. 45,000 were acquired from the Mandatory Government, 30,000 were bought from various churches, and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880-1948 show 73% of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin. Those who sold land included mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem, Jaffa, King Abdullah, even members of the Muslim Supreme Council.

The displaced Palestinians came from the fact that they deserted Israel during the 1948 war. After the partition plan, the Arabs invaded Israel and urged many Palestinians to temporarily leave and join them. Israel's Proclamation of Independence, issued May 14, 1948, invited Palestinians to remain in their homes and become equal citizens in the New Israeli state. It said, "In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions....We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all." However, most Palestinians left. Palestinian nationalist Aref el-Aref said this. "The Arabs thought they would win in less than the twinkling of an eye and that it would take no more than a day or two from the time the Arab armies crossed the border until all the colonies were conquered and the enemy would throw down his arms and cast himself on their mercy." After the Jews successfully defended the Arab invaders, they closed the borders.

After the war, UN Resolution 194, on December 11, 1948, recognized that Israel could not be expected to repatriate a hostile population that might endanger its security. In regards to the Palestinian's possessions, the Israeli government released the Palestinians bank accounts, and also arranged payments and tribute for the lands that were abandoned.

So, please tell me how the Jews stole the land from the Palestinians. And how should the Jews have reacted instead? Basically, the displaced Palestinians took a gamble and lost. You don't blame the casino when you bet your wedding ring and lose it. Similarly, they themselves and their Arab neighbors who attacked to blame for their situation. Yet, the majority of their anger is focused on the "Zionist enemy". If only we could all get along.

/. next?

[Caid Raspa]

From wired:
"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?

Interesting enough....

[RogrWilco]

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.

B'Nai B'rith, while a good org, is misguided

[firewort]

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.

You scare me

[heretic108]

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?

CSIS != CISC

[BMazurek]

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.

let's not punish the good guys

[beanerspace]

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.

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 .gif files all under the guise of an online flower shop.

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.

Re:let's not punish the good guys

[SubtleNuance]

they limit the rights of the law-abiding, while the law-breaker could give a fig.

Just for clarity - Americans have no Right to own guns. Not in the 'bill of rights' sense. It says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is, if you are a member of a well regulated militia charged by the authority of your state (an autonomous and democratically elected, member of the Republic which is the United States of America), you may, if you are one of *those* people, keep and bear arms.

Therefore, if you are a citizen, who intends to do something other than participate under the regulations of a militia who's duty it is to defend your state, in order to maintain its (being the *state's*) freedom, you do *NOT* have a right to have arms.

I will not debate the value of the public owning arms to defend itself from lawbreakers, or of citizens defending themselves from the government, but it is certainly not a "American Right".

It may be a good thing - it may not, i also have also debated the real value in keeping arms from Good People - i mean its not *good people* you have to worry about having arms - but as a matter of semantics, it is not really a "Right".

I know the NRA thinks otherwise, but you really only need read your Bill of Rights to understand the issue - it is very clear.

Punish actions, not expressions

[EisPick]

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.

Re:Punish actions, not expressions

[dkoyanagi]

Freedom of speech is protected by Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

2. Fundamental Rights
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

However Section 33 allows both federal and provincial governments to pass legislation that ignores Section 2 and Section 7-15 of the Charter

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

The government uses this provision only in extreme cases (such as banning hate literature). It is not used lightly and it most certainly wouldn't be used in this case.

Re:Punish actions, not expressions

[EisPick]

America hasn't faced a problem of this magnitude and scope before so public safety at the cost of freedom of expression has never truly been tested.

Who do you think you're kidding? We faced a far worse crisis in 1861. Then, our enemy was domestic, and a lot more blood was spilled over the next four years than in any combat before or since. For example, more Americans died just at Antietam than perished Tuesday.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to minimize the horror of the past week. It's the worst national crisis of my lifetime, and I'm guessing things will get worse before they get better.

But if we compromise our national principles in an effort to fight the enemy, then we've lost the war before it has begun.

Re:Punish actions, not expressions

[EisPick]

Thanks for posting that.

I'm embarrased to say I'm no more knowledgeable about Canadian government than the stereotypical ignorant American. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

Re:Punish actions, not expressions

[csbruce]

2. Fundamental Rights
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

One of the main issues with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that pretty much every right granted has an escape clause that allows it to be taken away. You have a right to free speech ... unless you offend someone. You have a right to communicate in whatever language you want ... unless a province overrides your rights (like Quebec). You have the right not to be discriminated against ... unless you are a white male.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This is referred to by some as "The Mack Truck Clause". It's not truly clear whether "reasonable limits" are a strength or a weakness, but it is definitely subject to abuse.

/. hypocrisy

[aozilla]

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.

IslamWay.com = Terrorism ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Note: I tried to register but I always failed !

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 .. so the person meant that army excersises will be a way to proove who is the coward and who is the brave !!

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

Re:IslamWay.com = Terrorism ?!

[Ms.Taken]

As far as I am concerned, this says it all... Islam forbids killing unless it is in self-defense.

Islam might forbid it but islamway.com does not.

From Is Jihad only permitted for the purpose of defense?:
"Allah commands waging all-out Jihad against polytheists and fighting them even in their lands 'until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah' (Al-Baqarah: 193).... [Everyone] should realize that contemporary thinkers are wrong in claiming that Jihad has been permitted only for the purpose of defense (counter-attack)."

It was certainly not their attitude when terrorists killed 100 people in Kashmir (India) when they published this message which exhorts people to "come forward, join Jaish-i-Muhammads allallahu `alaihe wassalaam and enjoy the taste of this glorious Jihad."

If you have any lingering doubts as to islamway.com's attitudes, check out this article praising the Taliban for destroying the Buddhist statues.

For the record I'm opposed to censorship, both online and off, and agree with those who have suggested that's it's better to permit (and watch) such sites than to send them underground.

But make now mistake, islamway.com is an extremist group, advocating violence under the banner of 'jihad'.

Re:IslamWay.com = Terrorism ?!

[HiThere]

I am against censorship. I also consider all authoritarian creeds, esp. religions, vile. Islam is near the top of my objects of loathing list, because cultures that adopt it tend to also adopt many oppressive practices. I don't really care about you official dogma. I try to look at what you do. You maintain slavery in Africa. You essentially have recreated slavery for women in Afganistan. This is what Islam is. It isn't the words you speak. And it is vile.

But I feel that you should have the right to speak. Because I hate all censorship. Be sure, if I approved of censoring any, I would approve of censoring authoritarians. Which definitely includes Islam.

As to not terrorist ... try "supportive of terrorists". Any culture that holds slavery up as an ideal (cf. slave of Allah) is supportive of terrorism.

Re:IslamWay.com = Terrorism ?!

[q-soe]

Sort of of like an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth ?

Would do you good to read your copy of the old testament as well my friend - you might find with a shock that it amd the Qumran (and the torah) are very very similar.

And this passage sounds very familiar, hhhmmmm

I see know with a bit of rewording you get...

'And today in washington President Bush Said "those people who oppose the united states will pay for their actions, we will bring them to justice, those who are terrorist and those who harbour them, this is a war against evil, May god bless america"

Its all how you look at it, isnt it ?

Re:IslamWay.com = Terrorism ?!

[prizog]

"Americans still have to swear on the bible in US courthouses."

False. At least in my state (PA), you may swear on the holy book of your choice, or just affirm if your religion forbids swearing oaths.

Re:IslamWay.com = Terrorism ?!

[scrytch]

You essentially have recreated slavery for women in Afganistan. This is what Islam is.

Funny thing is, before Islam, women in Arabia were treated even worse. One of the first things Mohammed did was outlaw the common practice going around of burying alive those who were unfortunate enough to be born female. Property laws before Islam completely disenfranchised women, they got nothing, ever. Women didn't exactly get parity under Islam, but it sure was a lot better than before.

I don't think the taliban are being taught the same interpretations of the koran...

Re:I wonder what I will tell my grandchildren....

[Nurgster]

Yes, the US has the most freedoms, as long as:

• You don't want to dislike someone of a minority (hate crimes)
  
• You don't practice religion in a public place.
  
• You don't do anything that might inadvertantly cause someone else to do something stupid (fear of litigation)
  
• You don't say how much you hate the current government
  

I'm sure there are many others (infact, I know there are), I just can't remember them at the moment.

islam way

[zerocool^]

Islam Way uses slash. Good work.

Re:Activism & instigation

[Jon Peterson]

Your post makes it sound as though hatred and intolerance have no place in any discussion. So is it wrong of me to say "I hate the people who put bombs in my home town!"?

Is it wrong to say "I will not tolerate those who resort to violence for the political ends?"

Some believe that freedom is a luxury, rather like art galleries and museums - a sign of culture and civilisation, but one that can, and should, be given second place in the face of some great evils. Perhaps you feel like this.

I, and others, feel that freedom is the solution to the great evils. Nothing is gained by removing it. In the words of John Stuart Mill "The truth will out". Let people speak freely, and there will be hate and intolerances and lies and sophistry, but out of that truth and wisdom and the good will rise up and be seen to be what they are.

The 'threat of world terrorism' is not born out of freedom. Curtailing freedom will prevent a bomb here, stop a hijack there. Maybe it will stop all the bombs and hijacks. But it won't stop terrorism. It won't stop people hating each other.

And you cannot strangle terrorism. It feeds on starvation and want. It feeds on ignorance and hopelessness and civil war and oppression, and it offers its recruits the chance to do anything, ANYTHING other than work themselves to death to raise a family and watch their children step on landmines, starve and die.

The Romans lived in constant fear that their civilized way of life would make them soft and vulnerable, and cause them to lose the fighting prowess that had won them such security. That is why they painted their walls with scenes of slaughter, and encouraged their people to watch endless, real, violent deaths played out day after day.

I do not think we need to be like them. We do not need to watch our brave cruise missiles blowing up the evil terrorist threat live on CNN 4 times a year, just to remind us that outside the palisade, the gaunt and treacherous natives are waiting in their caves with plastic knives and rusting guns.

It is is not us who need less freedom, but they who need more. If it is the only way, we should bring those 'states that harbour terrorism' the Pax Romana of the modern world, something that we have thus far failed to do.

But, please, let us make it more Pax, and less Romana.

Jon

Directly from the IslamWay response...

[sammy baby]

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...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.

- IslamWay.com's response

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.

Re:Directly from the IslamWay response...

[sammy baby]

If I were in their shoes I would fight even if it meant that I would die to free the country.

Spoken like a true Anonymous Coward.

First of all: the revolutionaries of the US weren't starving until the winter of Valley Forge. Most of the people you've read about in your history books - Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson - were pretty damn well off, and kicked off their revolution primarily because they couldn't compete economically with the state-backed monopolies from England (Like the East India Company).

But hey, let's say for the sake of argument that the Founding Fathers weren't any more advantaged than the average shmuck living in Afghanistan. Tell you what - why don't you fly out there with a bunch of friends and kick the Taliban's asses for us? Shouldn't be too hard. The fact that tens of thousands of people are fleeing the country as we speak, on top of the estimated two million who had already fled the country for Pakistan shouldn't deter you in any way: I'm sure they're all just big pussies.

The point, if you were too wrapped up in confusing Mosaic Law with pacifism to notice it, is that the people of Afghanistan are not the people who did this, any more than those killed in the World Trade Center were responsible for the deaths of the Palestinians and Iraqis that Bin Laden claims to be avenging. As one Afghan expatriate put it, when you think of the people of Afghanistan, "think the Jews in the concentration camps."

Oh, and while you're thinking that over, consider: a massive military strike against Afghanistan is exactly what Bin Laden is hoping for. From the same article:

We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West. And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants... Read his speeches and statements... It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers... He's probably wrong, in the end the west would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?

Not me.

Re:Directly from the IslamWay response...

[Angst Badger]

I normally try to avoid 'me too' posts, but since I don't have moderator status at the moment, well, damn, that was a well-spoken and insightful post.

I Don't Get It

[pagsz]

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,

Re:not quite

[aozilla]

If you hadn't noticed yet there are quite a few people who post on slashdot.

If you hadn't noticed there are some sentiments which are voted up and echoed over and over again, and others which are mostly ignored. Read my words. "the sentiment on Slashdot seems to be".

When 90% of upvotes on one article express one sentiment, and 90% of upvotes on another article express another, it is not unreasonable to think that there is an overlap between moderators who upvoted the posts in each.

The other B'Nai Brith accusation...

[Master of Kode Fu]

...is covered the latest edition of NOW magazine (an independent free weekly in Toronto). The opening paragraphs of the article read:

It didn't take b'nai brith very long on Tuesday, mere hours after the horror struck New York, to oil its spin machine. The group, whose timing is shameless, issued "an urgent alert" to security officials, warning them about possible terrorist supporters making their way to Canada for a pro-Palestinian demonstration taking place Saturday (September 15) in Montreal."Today's terrorist attacks have emphasized the vulnerability of all democratic states in the face of the ruthless agenda of terrorist groups, those who fund them and those who provide them with logistic and moral support," says the press release, neatly tying mass murder at the World Trade Centre to protest against the Israeli occupation.

Talk about guilt by association. The idea that thousands of terrorist symps were rushing across the border to carry placards at Concordia University was certainly news to Jewish and Arab peace activists who have worked together on the demo for a month now and have diligently outlawed the burning of the Israeli flag and speeches that incite hatred.

Once again, the story appears in full here.

Re:the real reason you cant infiltrate osama group

[mpe]

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...

Already covered by existing law...

[iCEBaLM]

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

Safety in Freedom

[MarkusQ]

So this means the USA, in theory, should be the safest country in the world!

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

Nuke the place that harbored and trained them

[twitter]

In fact, I think we ought to nuke them, just for good measure, in case any more terrorists are hiding in them.

Well put, but you know that these folks trained in Florida. I never did like that state. Guilty, all of you are guilty!

It's good to see...

[jesseraf]

It's good to see terrorist use opensource software too. Imagine the MS FUD now.....

Re:Outlaw Israeli fundraising while you at it...

[firewort]

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.

Re:Don't ban it - encourage it! (Exactly)

[Winged Cat]

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.

Re:That's typically usual

[SuiteSisterMary]

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.

Just war theory: WTC vs. Iraq Sanctions

[hey!]

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.

Re:Just war theory: WTC vs. Iraq Sanctions

[hey!]

Incidentally, millions (not thousands) of Iraqi children have died because of the U.S. embargo. How many more are needed to be considered "deliberate harm to innocent people"?.

I think that Americans should be trying harder to mitigate the effects of the sanctions on innocent Iraqis (not that the Iraqi government has been very helpful). But nobody has come up with a policy that insulates innocent Iraqis while containing Iraqi military adventurism -- at least without being able to depend with some cooperation from the Iraqi government.

If you have a better suggestion, the world is waiting to hear it.

Furthermore, Iraq is no treat whatsoever to the United States.

Humbug. To be sure, Iraq is no match for the US militarily; but Iraq isn't the point. The US has critical interests in the maintenance of stability in the region, both because of its immediate need for oil, and because it would be inevitably be drawn into a great war over oil if the region is destabilized.

But they certainly are a treat to Jewish supremacy in the Middle East, hence the Americans send billions of dollars in foreign aid to Israel and try to starve their rivals.

So, has the US been trying to starve Egypt by giving it economic aid? Why aren't we trying to starve Jordan, or Saudi Arabia? Why does Syria get a free pass, when it presents much more of a direct challenge to Israel than Iraq ever has?

I'd like to know exactly how you would explain these facts in your simple minded world view.

The fact is that Iraq is targetted because it is a threat to the stability of the region -- a region that the US simply cannot ignore.

The best thing from the US standpoint would be an Iraq strong enough to defend itself and with an interest in maintaining regional stability as it grows prosperous on its oil revenues. If Mr. Hussein had been content with being the head of a prosperous, healthy nation things would have been different. But he was bent on creating an empire with himself at its head -- a quixotic, corrupted version of the Baath ideal of a democratic, pan-arab nation.

The problem is that he's painted himself, and the US into a corner. We can't take him out because there's no way we can do it without destabilizing Iraq. We can't leave him be because he'll start a regional war. He needs the US sanctions to give him a scapegoat and keep his internal enemies at bay. It's an unholy alliance.

I wish the US should have been more creative and worked harder on getting aid to the Iraqi people. But unflattering as it is, Americans just aren't very interested in other countries. And the fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait has given them an excuse to ignore the suffering of the ordinary Iraqis,which is wrong. However, the flip side of this is that Americans just aren't that interested in oppressing other countries either, especially after Viet Nam (which not coincidentally was very unpopular at home).

However, after last Teusday, that's all changed. The world has got America's attention, and I hope that isn't a catastrophe.

No wonder Arabs attack us: They are only defending themselves.

If the US had any real reason to single out the people of Iraq to suffer, don't you think that we could make their life much worse? If Iraq turns out to be behind the WTC bombing, you will see what true American hatred could bring on the Iraqis. God forbid this should happen because the innocent will suffer even more. Likewise Afganistan. Attacking Afganistan is like shooting missiles into a train wreck.

I'm hoping, that in the end, our response will be measured, proportionate, and are undertaken with the least collateral damage possible, but I'm not optimistic. The attack on the WTC does not defend anyone or benefit anyone. It has just turned the US from a stance of benign indifference to one of bloodthirsty belligerance. There is no hope for a more nuanced or subtle approach to restrainign Iraqi adventurism, or for promoting Afghan development and integration with the world community.

Re:Activism & instigation

[SubtleNuance]

"I will not tolerate those who resort to violence for the political ends?"

As long as this dosnt mean "I will resort to violence against those who resort to violence for political ends?"

Pot this is kettle, Kettle, Pot.

America would be mindfull to think on this for a moment.

Really, I am wholly in agreement... I am surprised so much of America, and its leaders are crying out for blood so openly, as a Canadian, I am terrified... what has America *really* become... after 50 years of 'growth' into the undeniable empire it is today - why is there so much less enlightenment? Will Americans stand up for idealism as it has in the past? Why has that enlightenment been replaced with depravity and blood-lust?

If I had to hazard a guess it would be greed... but what the hell do I know - and frankly, how dare I question America The Great(TM).

Welcome to the monkey house

[gelfling]

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.

Re:That's typically usual

[Pig Hogger]

Uh... Bnai B'rith controls Hollywood? How?

Just look at the credits of any movie or TV programme. More particularly in the vicinity of the producer name.

And the greed in which the MPAA is going after DECSS is typically jewish, too.

OK, I'll Take This One

[virg_mattes]

> 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

Thoughts

[virg_mattes]

>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

B'Nai Brith simply silences Israels critics

[Nailer]

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.

What Do You Expect From a Frenchman?

[Poligraf]

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.

Re:What Do You Expect From a Frenchman?

[Poligraf]

I feel sorry for you - your government and media has fed you with SO MUCH BullMerde :-(

"Arrafat started the new war? Do you believe this, or are you just pulling it as a dirty rhetorical
ploy?

Tell me again, what led to the current crisis. Was it not Sharon walking in the mosquee square
(dunno about the english terminology for it), at a very inappropriate time? "

Yes, Arafat has started the new war.
Guess what, wars don't happen on the empty place. They need to be carefully planned and prepared.

1) For seven years Arafat owned the territories a lot of weapons and ammo was stockpiled there. The Oslo agreements permitted him to have 20,000 policemen with light weapons. Can you explain why they have about 150,000 strong militias with so much ammo that it's enough for a year of fighting?
2) Even rocks that Muslim "worshippers" were throwing at the Jews praying at the Western Wall were carefully stocked by the leaders of would be intifada.
3) Psychological moment. For seven years Arafat owned the territories his TV and radio were full of hatred and incitement (at the time when successive governments of Israel were talking about peace). He was preparing his people not to the peace, but to "war till the end" (Some Arab politicians talk abot 1967 lines, but the street and other polititians talk about "Palestine from Jordan river to the sea"). It was Arafat who prepared his people to "explode" at any moment. As soon as people became tired of his corrupt regime he started the war in order to fullen their rage and desperation not at the rightful target - himself - but at Israel.
4) Was it Sharon who released ALL Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists from Palestinian jail, so that they can murder Israeli civilians?

Conclusion: terror was a strategic decision of Arafat who was in the dead end after rejecting the most generous offer he had ever received. I've seen in the analitic news that Arabs started preparing to the war even before the Camp-David meeting.

Trying to blame Sharon's visit for the war is equal to believing that the WW2 started because Polish soldiers attacked German radiostation, like Nazi propaganda "explained" it.

"And why is Sharon prohibiting Peres from meeting Arrafat? Why is he afraid of diplomacy?"

He is not afraid of diplomacy. It is just that Sharon will not negotiate under fire (BTW, all the negotiations under fire that Barak tried of desperation lead to agreements that Arabs were not even thinking to follow). His position - let Arabs stop terrorism, and negotiations will follow. Or your media was not telling you about the cease-fire that was negotiated by CIA director Tennet in June that Arabs violated by continuing terrorism?

So, admit that Israel is a victim of French desire to get oil for cheap and have an arms market among Arabs.

Exsqueeze me?

[leereyno]

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

Re:not quite

[aozilla]

What the purpose of moderation? Isn't it to reflect the likely interests of the reader? If most of the posts which should be marked as -1 redundant or flaimbait get marked as +1 insightful, what does that mean? Abolutely nothing?

Perhaps the moderation system really is a meaningless as you make it out to be, but considering how predictable the rating of a post is, I highly doubt it.

And yes, if you can predict something with great accuracy, it's probably not random (unless you have psychic powers). That also is a statistical truth.

Re:That's typically usual

[csbruce]

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.]

Working link

[Ben Hutchings]

The first article appears to be have been removed, so use Google's cached copy of the page instead.

I'll Take One More...

[virg_mattes]

> Are you claiming that there was a law somewhere that required people to fly commercial jets into buildings, thus people slowly got the impression that it was OK?

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.

THE LIMITED WARRANTY THAT APPEARS ABOVE IS THE ONLY EXPRESS WARRANTY MADE TO YOU AND IS PROVIDED IN LIEU OF ANY OTHER EXPRESS WARRANTIES (IF ANY) CREATED BY ANY DOCUMENTATION OR PACKAGING. EXCEPT FOR THE LIMITED WARRANTY AND TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS PROVIDE THE SOFTWARE AND SUPPORT SERVICES (IF ANY) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, AND HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL OTHER WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EITHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY (IF ANY) IMPLIED WARRANTIES, DUTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OF ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OR RESPONSES, OF RESULTS, OF WORKMANLIKE EFFORT, OF LACK OF VIRUSES AND OF LACK OF NEGLIGENCE, ALL WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE, AND THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.

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

Re:Outlaw Israeli fundraising while you at it...

[firewort]

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.

Re:Neither Flame nor Flaimbait...but

[greenrd]

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.

Why is there a contradiction between the two statements? Please elaborate.

What will it take to let make people recognize the reflexitivity of the situation, your rights == my rights, and live with it?

I'm sorry, but you're not making much sense to me. WHat do you mean?