U.S. Lists Web Sites as Terrorist Organizations

mgcsinc writes "The United States for the first time has placed a web site on the list where it normally places terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, placing several conditions on Americans' interactions with the website. Certainly, few could challenge the latest addition, but how could this ability to effectively squelch internet speech be used by the government with less valid rationale in the future?"

Comments

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Web Site isn't the terrorist, it's the terrorist operatin the web site that's a terrorist.

Squelching internet right? Jesus..you people need to get a grip.

Re:What?

[mr. methane]

Perusing my security logs, I see 4,300 port scans, ssh crack attempts, and so on all from .cn addresses. Since the top of the hour, that is. ('bout 32 minutes ago)

I am beginning to wish China was slightly more effective in their blocking.

Re:What?

[caluml]

Erm, that is a lot, unless you're looking after a class B or something. You must have something else going on there. You signed up with a Chinese hacking contest site or something?

Re:What?

[MrTangent]

Web sites don't kill people... people do.

Yeah

[Sir Haxalot]

Since when a website ever directly killed anyone?

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

fear.com ?

Re:Yeah

[EvilAlien]

Feardotcrap made me want to kill someone, does that count?

Re:Yeah

[DavidBrown]

Since when a website ever directly killed anyone?

http://www.goatse.cx/

Re:Yeah

[kavau]

Since when a website ever directly killed anyone?

Do you thin bin Laden ever directly killed anyone? Or has he rather just promoted hate and ordered people to do the killing?

Re:Yeah

[SCHecklerX]

Since when a website ever directly killed anyone?

When it is the launching point for the 'sploit of the day against MSIE, and some numbskull has the MSIE-infected computer on the same network as systems monitoring patients in a hospital.

Re:Yeah

[Guppy06]

The so-called "Nuremberg List" comes to mind.

Re:Yeah

[SinaSa]

I have begun work on mod_c4, mod_suicideblast and mod_dirtynuke for apache. The beta currently works only on *nix systems, but I am hoping for win32 support for terrorist webservers across the internet before the end of the year.

Re:Yeah

[Sir Haxalot]

Since when a website ever directly killed anyone?
ACTUALLY, now I come to think of it, there was a virus years ago (that you could get over the internet, and possibly a website), that when it infected your computer o/ced your cpu that it set the computer on fire (or something like that), and a couple of people died because of it.

Re:Yeah

[DjReagan]

That answer kinda neatly sidesteps the "directly" part of the question, dont you think?

Re:Yeah

[vladkrupin]

Since when a website ever directly killed anyone?

Insightful? You've gotta be kidding me! Shortsighted and dumb at best!

Let me ask you this: Since when did child pornography hurt any child? After all, I'm not raping the kid, so I'm not doing any harm, right?... NOT!

It appears we more and more think of wrongdoing and responsibility ONLY in terms of physical action. It goes like that: if I haven't lifted the knife, I am not guilty (nevermind the fact that I brainwashed the murderer into believing he was doing the right thing). I would argue that not only are you guilty of the crime, but you are even more guilty than him because the guy who actually committed murder was dumb as a rock to believe you, but you knew better!

I looked over those websites in question. I've never heard of any of those movements before, but just a cursory look shows calls to expel palestinians from the west bank and other places, prosecute them, equate them with Nazis, etc. Even if we din't know anything about israeli/palestinian conflict, we could easily observe lots of repulsive inflamatory ideas and calls for action, including calls for violence. Ok, they don't kill palestinians themselves (a lot of contributors seem to be in Brooklyn or other safe places rather than in Israel), but they sure do entice people in Israel to do just that!

I'm not going to get into all that media censorship / free speech debacle - it's a multi-faceted issue, and there is no single right answer to it. I do know this though: If you entice someone to commit a crime, you are at least as guilty as the one who commits that crime. Thus the whole "when did a website directly killed anyone" crap is shallow, perverse, and some of our /. moderators dumb as rocks.

What's Interesting About This Is.

[1stflight]

With the current administration so adamant about not criticizing israeli actions...

Jewish group Kahane Chai or Kach, which is suspected of organizing attacks on Palestinians.

This is a first!!!!

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Anonymous Coward]

So attacking terrorists is terrorism?

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Anonymous Coward]

They have existed for fucking ages. Did you truly believe that a place as fucked up as Israel had no terrorist organisations? Israel shot dead their leader a few years ago.

Typical ignorant American.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[turkeyphant]

Yeah, but when you actually read the website you can kind of see why...

This a group that goes far beyond any notion of being reasonable and actively discourages negotiations of any sort. I suspect that even Bush is obliged to condemn these people. There is no way that these website can be contrived to be deemed to be speaking for Isralis.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a first!!!!

Wrong. It's not a first, nor a last. The Kahane Chai group and its predecessor have LONG been labeled by the State Department as a terror group. In January 2001 (this was months before 9/11), the FBI raided the headquarters of a Brooklyn group that maintains the Kahanist Web site, and tried to locate documents linking them with Kach or Kahane Chai. That's worth repeating: They raided a terror group's web host service just to hunt these guys down. The US and Israeli intellgence services have also coordinated searches, and helped dry up funding for this group of thugs. (Again, this was before the hard-line attitude the US has taken towards terrorists since 9/11.)

America gets lots of bad press in the world because of its support of Israel. Perhaps the US could do more to help promote peace. Perhaps the Palestinians could do more to stop killing children and civilians in restaurants and buses. There's lots of blame to go around. But now we've found a new person to blame: YOU, for not getting your fucking facts straight before you mouth of.

Perhaps it's only a first for you, since you're finally starting to learn a little about something you obviously know nothing about.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[dougmc]

Yeah, but when you actually read the website you can kind of see why...

Not from that page I can't. I see a bunch of inflamatory, racist drivel -- but last I checked, even racist speech was protected by the First Amendment here in the US. At least in name, anyways.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the idea is that they don't want to criticize Sharon. That doesn't mean they can't criticize other Israelis.

One of the big problems with Bush's two-tone, you-are-either-for-us-or-against-us, view of the world and terrorism is that it kind of leaves his hands tied when he winds up with someone who is for us (Ariel Sharon is, quite definitely, against terrorism, and good at fighting it) but is on the other hand perhaps not a good person and is definitely not fighting his battles in the most civilized way. Bush can't support Sharon *too* much, because then people will start asking questions about some of the nastier things Sharon has done in his crusade. But Bush also certainly can't speak against Sharon, as Sharon is "with us"; he can't speak about Sharon as if Sharon were some kind of shade of moral gray, since moral grays don't exist on Planet Reagan. And he most of all can't say "Sharon is a good person doing bad things for a good cause, he's misguided but better than the alternatives" becuase that would imply there are times that the ends do not justify the means, and admitting that would leave people open to questioning times Bush has used very nasty means for technically good ends. So he just quietly doesn't say anything, occationally emitting a few words in support of "Israel".

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[sageres]

That's wrong. Kach and Kahane Chai got a bad rap because of possible linking of them to the murder of Itzhak Rabin. (The only linkage is that these two organizations condoned it. They never too the responcibility for the attack).

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[sageres]

Possible political implications to think about -> both Kahane organizations and Ariel Sharon's Likud party have official ties with settler movement. By attacking Kahane organizations it is possibly sending Sharon an indirect unofficial message about Israel's recent attack on Syria.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[silas_moeckel]

Ah but you miss the duplicity of it all. States get to do whatever they want in the name of fighting terrisim, rebels and sepratists including using there tactics. One persons rebel or terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. The problem with these sorts of orginizations is they have become a method to wage war without going to war as fas as there host states are concerned, welcome to the post UN world where you cant go to war unless your on the security council and can veto any reprisals.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[drooling-dog]

So attacking terrorists is terrorism?

No, attacking innocent people is terrorism, regardless of their ethnicity or faith, and regardless of whether the attacker operates in opposition to or on behalf of an established government.

But this word has been such a propaganda vehicle for so long that it no longer has any useful meaning.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[sageres]

The Goldstein issue and how involved was Kahane Chai was never proven. The only reason Kahane organizations are banned in Israel is because they sparked very popular views in Israeli public that the land from the Jordan river to the sea is the ancient Jewish land and thus not an inch of it should be given to the Arabs.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Metaldsa]

Writing in a book that Bush should be overthrown is protected by free speech. Organizing a group of people and saying they should rush into the White House and overthrow Bush is not protected free speech.

I think a web site that puts up its views is protected HOWEVER the second they start to organize a possible attack (like its members do) then its not free speech anymore.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[fishbowl]

I don't like the sentiment expressed in that website, but, Mr. Bush swore an oath to protect that person's right to speak his mind.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Jeremy Erwin]

Rabin was murdered, in 1995, by Yigal Amir, who was a member of Eyal. Some have speculated that Eyal is loosely affiliated with Kahane Chai and Kach, based on shared memberships. Speculative, at best, although others may have evidence of stronger links.

Kahane Chai has publicly assumed responsibility for a number of terrorist attacks of Palestinians, including Baruch Goldstein's slaughter of 29 people in the Ibrahim Mosque in 1994. Since March 1994, both Kahane and Kach have been outlawed by the Israeli government.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[TheAntiCrust]

Read the first chapter.

Michael Moore's Book: Stupid White Men

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the Palestinians could do more to stop killing children and civilians in restaurants and buses. You'd be doing the same thing if it was the only weapons you had, in the event your land was being invaded by some other country. Quit pretending you're so morally high.

I'd toast every invader... man, woman or child, if they were so inclinded to move into my front yard with tanks and guns and blow up my house... given the chance I survived. You'd hopefully do the same.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Metaldsa]

Yeah, I've seen his movies and read through some of his book. Opinions don't make people right. Not mine, yours, Michael Moore's or any other famous person not matter how entertaining or well spoken it is put. Only the facts show who is right in the end. So don't point to someone's opinion to prove a point.

This reminds me of how 8 months ago I sat through some of my professor's (at college) lectures about the Iraq war and this one history teacher told of three likely outcomes.

1.) The kurds taking advantage of the war and creating their own country in northern Iraq.
2.) Israel pushing out the Palenstineans in a mass exodus.
3.) Many more 9/11 scenerios because it would create more terrorists than it would kill.

Litterly hundreds of students hung on my genius professor's opinion as fact because he was smarter than them. They believed some of his WWIII outcomes and thought the mideast would crumble because of the war. Yet his opinion was not fact and in the end was nor more useful than some hotel maid's opinion of the war.

I will give you that Michael Moore is entertaining but frankly I would trust your opinion, a random slashdot responder, more than his. For I grew up near Flint and my grandpa was a GM worker so I know how the "poor" unions behave. My opinion: Its not the 1920s anymore and people should be payed based on their skills in the free market and NOT by blackmailing a huge company.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[knobmaker]

...HOWEVER the second they start to organize a possible attack (like its members do) then its not free speech anymore.

In America, the authorities are supposed to prove such allegations before punishing the perpetrators. This is admittedly inefficient, since it's pretty much impossible to do this "the second they start," but our system of law has worked pretty well for 200 years. Folks who don't like it ought to consider moving to a country where the state gets rid of dissidents before they can cause any trouble, like the Peoples Republic.

Myself, I don't find that sort of efficiency admirable.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

It's terrorism when you use violence with the purpose of inciting fear to reach your political, ideological or religious goals; whether the party you're terrorizing is "innocent" or not has got nothing to do with it. That's just the kind of moralistic propaganda that makes these words useless.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[turkeyphant]

Of course. I don't defend the action to try and censor any website or organisation on any level, I was merely stating that I understand why someone who is intent upon censoring all views opposed to theirs would start a vendetta against this group.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[the_mad_poster]

I think you have it backwards. People keep telling me that if I don't like this whole "pre-emptive" attitude that our new Evil Overlords have, that I should leave the country. Which is it now?

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[good soldier svejk]

Not from that page I can't. I see a bunch of inflamatory, racist drivel -- but last I checked, even racist speech was protected by the First Amendment here in the US. At least in name, anyways.

Of course. Kahane Chai and Kach did not get on the State Departments limited and arbitrary list of terrorist organizations by publishing. They got there by murdering people and committing other acts of terror in Israel, Palestine and the United States. Baruch Goldstein, who killed 29 worshippers at a Hebron Mosque was a Kach member acting on behalf of her sister organization, the Jewish Defense League (JDL). Officially Kach is a political party and the JDL a militia. Meir Kahane founded both of them. Another Kach affiliated militia, Eyal, assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Until 2001 the State Department listed Kahane Chai and Kach seperately. For some reason they merged them that year. The two organizations do have extensive cross membership. IIRC, 2001 was also the year the State department added Hizbollah to the list.

According to the article, the list includes "newkach.org, kahane.org, kahane.net, kahanetzadak.com as aliases for the Jewish group Kahane Chai or Kach." This is quite different than listing the sites themselves based on their content. I wonder if the names in question are legal business entities.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Well, by that definition, any military action is terrorism. I agree with you that "innocent" is a loaded word, but we can usefully draw a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate targets. If you're attacking your enemy's military, or his political leadership, it's war; if you're attacking civilians on the street, it's terrorism. Obviously there's a fine line here when you're talking about airstrikes in crowded cities, and the like.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

So if Mahatma Gandhi would have had a web site when forcing Britain to leave India by arranging demostrations - civil disobediansce - would they have been considered terorists ?

Probably!

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[darien]

... some of the nastier things Sharon has done in his crusade.

Just to be a pedant - probably "crusade" isn't quite the appropriate word here... ;)

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Alsee]

One persons rebel or terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

While there are certainly grey areas, there are a variety of valid criteria for making a distinction. For example a group that systematicly kills random unarmed families in supermakets is undeniably terrorist. A group that undertakes the extermination of an entire population is undeniably terrorist.

I've never heard of Kahane Chai before, but if the website I saw paints a fair picture of their actions then they are terrorists just like Hamas.

I'm sure some international organization or another has published a reasonable and fairly comprehensive list of such criteria.

-

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Lord Kano]

Wrong. It's not a first, nor a last...

Perhaps he means that it is a first to get such high profile (which admittedly isn't very high at all) coverage. Since the 1970s our mass media have put forth the image that ALL terrorism is committed by arabs against Israelis and Americans.

Perhaps the US could do more to help promote peace. Perhaps the Palestinians could do more to stop killing children and civilians in restaurants and buses. There's lots of blame to go around. But now we've found a new person to blame: YOU, for not getting your fucking facts straight before you mouth of.

You are 100% correct, no one is blameless in the middle east conflict. Israel refuses to take part in good faith negotiations, the Palestinians refuse to deal with the violent extremists in their midst, and the US obviously favors one side over the other.

Arafat and Sharon have killed innocent civillians and that makes it harder for the other side to take them seriously. Until all sides admit that they have done wrong, and negotiate in good faith, the cycle of violence will continue.

LK

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Alsee]

With the current administration so adamant about not criticizing israeli actions...

Well Israel's action in this case was to declare Kahane Chai an illegal terrorist group in 1994.

The is exactly why Israel is in general the "good guy" in the conflict. For all their failings, they do endevor to target those with weapons. They do endevor to police their own people to prevent indiscriminant violence.

The Palestinians are primarily the victims of the surrounding governments that repeatedly attempted to invade and exterminate Israel. The Palesitinians have become pawns in an effort to continue the failed war.

As much as the Palestinians are victims, they have still in general become the "bad guys". It is almost imposible to remedy any legitimate greivances they have when the population in general actively supports terrorist attacks.

I really hope the fledgling Palestinian government succeeds and can police their own people (note that that I commented on Israelis policing their own people earlier). If the Palestinians can form a genuine and effective government that does not support terrorism then there is finally hope for improving the lives of Palestinians.

-

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

Well, by that definition, any military action is terrorism.

No it's not; normally, spreading fear is not the main purpose of military action (occupying or defending territory is).

we can usefully draw a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate targets

Don't mix up war and terrorism, in terrorism there are no illegitimate targets. Your puropse is to spread as much fear as possible, remember?

If you're attacking your enemy's military, or his political leadership, it's war;

Absolutely untrue. Israel was founded after terrorist actions against the occupying british armed forces, various terrorist attacks have been aimed at military installations, warships and ambassies recently.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[GrodinTierce]

But when you talk about Palestinian terror attacks, do you consider all attacks against Israelis to be terrorist (I agree that those that kill civilians are cowards), or do you allow that attacks against settlers and the IDF (in the Occupied Territories) are legitimate resistance against occupation?

Also, what about Israel's targeted killings, which have frequently killed many innocent Palestinian bystanders? Even if that may not be Israel's goal, isn't it wrong not to care about killing civilians in pursuit of terrorists (who are some times political leaders e.g. Sheik Ahmed Yassin, a blind cripple)? If Israel kills a terrorist, but also 15 innocents, how can that be justified?

Finally, what about house demolitions? Entire families are punished for the actions of one member, and in some cases even apartment buildings are destroyed.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Zemran]

But the Israelis use US weapons to kill those children with so they cannot be doing wrong, can they?

There is no point trying to put any rational to what is, ideology... The US has a long history of harbouring terrorists and now wants to paint a different picture. Even though the IRA are not as in your face now there are still other terrorist organisations, like the Cambodian Freedom Fighters, operating out of the US. Due to our long history of forming, arming and helping these organisations, it is difficult to turn our backs on our old friends. Israel got where it is now by blowing up embassies etc. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist... It is easy to go on but in the end you simply have to accept that as there are no longer commies under your bed, there has to be a new paria.

They are the bad guys that the gov has to protect you from... Who cares that Saddam had been disarmed, was our ally until 1991 and had no links with terrorists... we had to be protected from him. In the same way that we need to be protected from those Palestinians. It is irrelevant that they are defensless, we have to kill them in case they corrupt our children with their different ideas.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[mrkurt]

Perhaps the US could do more to help promote peace. Perhaps the Palestinians could do more to stop killing children and civilians in restaurants and buses. There's lots of blame to go around. But now we've found a new person to blame: YOU, for not getting your fucking facts straight before you mouth of.

Perhaps the Israelis could help out in this situation by Getting the phuck out of the West Bank instead of building settlements as close to the Jordan as possible, making any notion of a state for Palestinians an impossibility. Might be a looked at as a provocation, eh?

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[reallocate]

Ii've always thought it was so nice of Michael Moore to write an autobiography.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[MoneyT]

Was Gandhi and his followers considered terrorists? Remember, the sites are listed as ailises of existing terrorist organizations. THe site itself is not listed as a terrorist org.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Metaldsa]

If you were born in a western world and choose to not go to college then I believe you should not get a job paying you $20 an hour to sweep floors. Maybe you don't remember the morons in high school who only did drugs instead of their homework. Well 4 years of fun can bite you in the ass.

And luckily in America when you fuck up you don't starve. If you lived in FL or CA you would see thousands of fuck ups with no skills who are much fatter than I am. I don't know if the fuckups in China starve but in America they don't. In Europe I hear they get payed.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[matfud]

You are correct when you say that there are many people who wish Israel gone. And there is a reason for that. Israel did not exist before 1948.
There are many people who remember (less as the years go on) the creation of israel and do not approve.

There was terrorism in the region even before this against the British occupation of the area. An tension has been building since the begining of the last centuary as the Zionist movement encouraged jewish people to move into the region
(encouaged in the 30's by increasing anti jewish behaviour in a number of germanic countries)

matfud

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[toast0]

Hmm... how can you say for sure that the war will not create many more large scale terrorist attacks on the us?

It's not as if they can just set that up overnight...

They're probably waiting for the US to get lax in its security again anyhow

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[holt]

who are some times political leaders e.g. Sheik Ahmed Yassin, a blind cripple

What does being a "blind cripple" have to do with anything?

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[mr100percent]

"3.) Many more 9/11 scenerios because it would create more terrorists than it would kill."

Oh, so since you haven't seen any in only 6 months, then you think its over? The US's worldwide approval ratings have hit solid bottom. Legitimate scholars are NOW saying its ok to hit the US because they are the invaders.

Things WILL get worse, believe me.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if the 9/11 strike had only included the plane that struct the Pentagon, it hadn't been a terrorist but a military attack ?

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[quintessencesluglord]

I've heard this argument before, and I tend to respectfully disagree. Fear and war go hand in hand (shock and awe, hiroshima, etc.). You remove the psychological element from war entirely; you are attempting to sanitize it. It's nice to wrap it in an intellectualism of a military campaign, but if you look at how any war has been fought, you see terrorist (per your definition- to promote fear) being taken by either side.

If a war is desperate enough, there are no illegitamite targets (the Geneva convetion kind of faulters in the face of biological and thermonuclear war). Not to mention guerilla tactics; lables are pretty meaningless to either side except for propaganda concerns.

What defines an action as terrorism is simply who is in power... Doublespeak serves its' masters well.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

So if the 9/11 strike had only included the plane that struct the Pentagon, it hadn't been a terrorist but a military attack ?

Not quite, because of course it was a civilian airliner that was being used as a weapon. But if the attackers had, say, fired a missile at the Pentagon, or even crashed a military plane into it ... yes, I would call that an act of war, and not terrorism.

The attack on the USS Cole was, IMO, wrongly described as a terrorist attack. The people on that ship may have been eating dinner, but they were uniformed sailors of the United States, on duty in a military vessel.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Exactly. Occupation of territory may be (and usually is) the objective of a military operation, but the method is to kill the enemy's soldiers until the survivors surrender or run away. I don't think any army in history has actually fought to the last man; the army which loses is the one which first loses its will to fight, and the way that happens is almost always through fear.

I strongly disagree with the idea that there are no illegitimate targets, though. A lot of this has to do with my background: as a medic, I took the LOAC (Law Of Armed Conflict, which includes the Geneva Conventions) on a rather personal level. Civilians, wounded, prisoners, and other noncombatants are never legitimate targets, no matter how desperate you are. Those who disregard this rule have IMO put themselves into the "terrorist" category by default, no matter if they're waring uniforms or not.

For those who think this view is naive (almost certainly all macho chickenhawk armchair warriors who have never heard a shot fired in anger or tried to tend to a wounded kid as he screams for his mother, but I digress) I will note that there is a practical, as well as moral, component. Killing soldiers is necessary and expected in wartime. Killing civilians does nothing but piss people off. And an enemy is a lot more likely to surrender if he thinks he'll be treated humanely.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[TPFH]

Well, by that definition, any military action is terrorism.

From what I understand, military action, when not in self-defense, is considered an Act of Aggression (or is that a War of Aggression?) which is considered worse than Terrorism, at least in international law.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[b-baggins]

The accepted definition of terrorism is the DELIBERATE killing of civilians with the specific purpose of creating fear and uncertainty in the general population.

The accepted definition of geurilla warfare is targeting military and political targets in an attempt to disrupt military and governmental operations.

Jews engaged in geurilla warfare pre 1948. The Palestinian terrorists, for the most part, engage in terrorism (there are some exceptions; attacks at military checkpoints, assassinations of political leaders).

This is not complicated. People make it complicated because they want the Jews to be the bad guys, so they have to warp and twist the facts to fit their world picture.

Golda Maer summed it up beautifully: "We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us."

It's that simple.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Metaldsa]

Didn't we just talk about opinions and facts? I won't believe your opinion any more than another person's opinion. And here is why I can't.

I was in studying in Scotland for a semester when 9/11 happened. A lot of the foreigner students (mostly german and french kids but very diverse) told me that invading Afghanistan was going to "create a 1,000 more bin ladens" and create many more 9/11 scenarios. They said diplomacy was the correct way to solve the problem and not war.

Was their opinion wrong or right about that war? So far they have been wrong as 1,000 more people smart and funded like bin laden haven't appeared. Could they be right in the end? Perhaps but only time will tell and time isn't on their side because memories, pain, and revenge are less likely over time.

Are you right about the war in Iraq and that it will cause more terrorist attacks in the US? Perhaps you are right and I am wrong. But unless something big happens in the next 12 months I doubt you will be right. I lived in MI, near Dearborn (the biggest Iraqi-American population I believe) where people danced in the street thanking Bush for taking down Saddam. So don't think its 100% chance you are right.

I respect your opinion...unless you got it off some leftist pamphlet with a few skewed facts. :)

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

You remove the psychological element from war entirely; you are attempting to sanitize it.

I didn't mean to. I do realize war is horrible, that clean war is an oximoron, and that armies often engage in terrorist activities. I'm just trying to point out that terrorism is a particular kind of violent strategy to reach your goals. It's different from military strategy and guerilla warfare in that it doesn't aim the violence at disabling the enemy's military, governmental and industrial capabilities.

Instead, terrorist targets are selected to have a maximium impact on public opinion; the targets in question have a symbolical meaning rather than a strategical one (bombing ordinary civilians at random is symbolic in the sense of "it could be you next"). A terrorist wants the public to do the real disruptive work and the authorities to panic so they're more likely to make mistakes or give in to demands.

What defines an action as terrorism is simply who is in power... Doublespeak serves its' masters well.

I very much agree that the term terrorism is misused more often than not, but it once had a distinct meaning that had noting to do with who was in power or whether its targets where civilian or not. That's what this discussion is about.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[superyooser]

Palestine

You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Alsee]

when you talk about Palestinian terror attacks, do you consider all attacks against Israelis to be terrorist

I certainly would not say that all attacks against Israelis are by definition terrorist, but I would say that any attack deriving from terrorist activity is terrorist.

legitimate resistance

Are there Palestinian groups that engage in violence that could arguably be legitimate resistance and who actively oppose terrorist activity? Anyone who supports suicide bombing supermarkets doesn't have much right to claim the high-ground of "legitimate resistance".

In World War II I think the French Resistance probably would have SHOT one of it's own members if he intentionally bombed a civilian bus load of innocent German women and children.

isn't it wrong not to care about killing civilians in pursuit of terrorists

But I think they do care. Do you dispute that there are legitimate targets for Israel to go after? Do you have any credible suggestions on how Israel can safely and cleanly get at those targets?

The fact is that Israel has a right to defend itself from people sending suicide bombers in to blow up supermarkets. There are people who proudly proclaim they want to exterminate every last Israeli. People who simply want to commit murder.

There are only two ways to deal with such people, through police and through military action. Thus far the Palistinian Authority has been unwilling and unable to police it's own people. Action by Israeli police force is impossible unless you want to disband the Palistinian Authority and annex the the region as full-fledged Israeli territory. That only leaves military action, and unfortunately military action is "messy". It is particularly messy when the residents in general support the terrorists and activly interfere with the military action.

It's impossible to unilaterally end violence when rouge groups are free to commit murder at will. It is impossible for one side to sucessfully resolve anything when faced with countless rouge groups. As I said, the best hope is for is to have sucessfull Palestinian government that can police it's own rouge elements.

When the situation is reduced to two parties both credibly able to deal with their own people then real progress can occur.

Finally, what about house demolitions?

No argument there. I mentioned in my last post that Palestinians have legitimate greivances. Israel has been playing serious shenanigans with zoning and construction laws.

While I support Palestinians on that issue, it pales in comparison to suicide bombers and the the PLO's charter calling for a total and violent "liquidation" of Israel.

-

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[iannn]

Look, just because someone has problems in high school or at some other point isn't an excuse for supporting policies that ruin the rest of their life. You should also note both that not going to college is not necessarily a 'choice' and that even if one were to make that choice it once again is not an excuse for supporting policies that ruin the rest of their life. When did you come to the conclusion that it was either necessary or useful for the entire US population to go to college?

Since this is probably too altruistic for you to understand perhaps it would be more beneficial for you to think of it in terms of minimizing degenerative social problems, increasing domestic productivity, decreasing urban crime, etc. Be creative! Have a field day with it! Tell us what you can come up with, or you might get a poor grade and be a loser for the rest of your life.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[thirdrock]

Perhaps the Israelis could help out in this situation by Getting the phuck out of the West Bank instead of building settlements as close to the Jordan as possible, making any notion of a state for Palestinians an impossibility.

Didn't Palestine disappear in 1416(?) when the Ottoman turks conquered it?

The notion that any nation has been formed without the use of blood and iron is historically absurd.

It looks shitty to us because it upsets our TV dinners when we watch it on the 7 o'clock news, but this kind of conflict has been going on all over the world for thousands of years.

No one is to blame, I repeat, NO ONE IS TO BLAME. This is a power struggle, an ongoing war and a revolution all wrapped into one conflict.

The only thing that can stop it is the same thing that gave Europe it's longest period of peace. Secular education.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[ZWithaPGGB]

The JDL also tried to kill a US Congressman (mine at the time), Darrel Issa , the architect of the CA recall, for the simple reason that he is Lebanese (2nd generation). These people are terrorists, in the same way Al Qaeda are. Just because they're Jewish, and so ostensibly on our side, is no reason to give them a pass.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[ZWithaPGGB]

Considering that the surviving members of a suicide bomber's family receive $$; Punishing them for the suicide bomber is probably the only action with any hope of deterrence Israel can do. If I were Sharon, I'd kill each suicide bomber's extended family, no hold that, I'd kneecap them. But what do I know, I'm Irish, we won our terrorist war, mostly by avoiding non-combatant casualties. The Palestinians and all Islamists are scum who don't deserve a country. Just look at how the rest of the Arab world lives. Despite the greatest natural resources on Earth, they continue to live like animals, treat their women like crap, and have nothing to offer the world except violence.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Doudine]

Israel exists thanks to the UN.

Israel continues to exist thanks to it's people, support of Jews in other countries and, most important, G-d the Almighty. UN doesn't not defend Israel or help it, on contrary, UN helps enemies of Israel.

Israel keeps violating UN Security Council resolutions.

That's why it still exist.

Israel will continue to suffer terrorist attacks unless a peace agreement is met or all Arabs are wiped out of the region

There were Oslo peace agreement, it did not help. Arabs do not seem to believe in peace agreements. see http://www.yashanet.com/news/saladim.htm The latter wariant is more real.

If all Arab kids had a gameconsole and the possibility to go to the cinema every Saturday, I do not think they would be willing to commit suicide the way they are doing it today.

What a noncence. How can game consoles help against their hate? They have gameconsoles, internet, computers, TV. They use it all to teach children violence.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

Not quite, because of course it was a civilian airliner that was being used as a weapon. But if the attackers had, say, fired a missile at the Pentagon, or even crashed a military plane into it ... yes, I would call that an act of war, and not terrorism.

And you still maintain that your definition of terrorism doesn't put you on a very slippery slope? Is it terrorism when the military bombs bridges, harbors or oil refineries during war, because those are civilian targets? By your definition one would have to agree, no matter if the targets are of vital strategic importance.

The attack on the USS Cole was, IMO, wrongly described as a terrorist attack.

Attacking the Cole had no strategic or tactical importance whatsoever, it was a symbolic act that intended to say "Yankee go home, or perhaps you'll be next." The attackers and the navy both knew these kind of suicide attacks are not a viable way of defeating the enemy in combat, but it still scares the heck out of everyone and it demonstrates the US is not untouchable.

Please do mind that I'm trying to steer well away of discussing the ethics and morality behind both terrorism and waging war. I personally think violence should always be the last option, but that goes for war as well as for terrorism.

All I'm saying is that you can't depict terrorists as inhuman because they only attack civilian targets, that's pure propaganda. A terrorist will pick his targets to have the biggest psychological impact, whether its the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, or both in one strike.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[darien]

(Was making a point about the literal meaning of crusade = a marking with the cross, i.e. specifically a Christian pursuit. I know what the poster meant, I was just being an arse...)

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[mosch]

It is only in the United States that all of Hamas is labeled as 100%terrorist. They do many good deeds in addition to the ones that earn them their fame.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Molina the Bofh]

Shhhhh. Even though you posted it as AC, they can trace your IP number.
I hope Echelon won't find this message.

--- sig
The Owl and the Pussycat Assassinate the EuroFeds
The Owl and the Pussy-Cat went to sea
In a beautiful pea-green NORAD Juliet-Class Submarine:
They took some primacord, and plenty of Satellite imagery
Wrapped up in a Delta Force remailer.
The Owl looked up to the Defcon VI TACSAT above,
And sang to a small fissionable CipherTAC-2000,
"O lovely Pussy, O Pussy, my love,
What an Anonymous Black-Ops Information-Warfare Pussy you are,
What an Enemy of the State you are!"
Pussy said to the Owl, "You rogue siliconpimp,
How charmingly sweet your crypto-anarchy!
Oh! let us be married; too long we have plotted World Domination:
But what shall we do for a secure-shell wire transfer?"
They sailed away, for a year and a day,
To the land where the INFOSEC Propaganda-mindwar grows;
But there in Area51 an MKULTRA psych-ops Delta Force spook stood,
With a SEMTEX Squib at the end of his nose, Squashed by operation PaperClip
The Package arrived wrapped in 18 layers of IRIDF SAFE paper at 2300 hours
The EODC, EODG, and EODN fractions were known to be well beyond delta safety level.
SASSTIXS SATCOMA ABRAXIS
SURSAT AMEMB SASSTIXS
BLACKER BECKER SAAM
UKUSA SAAM GEBA SAAM
We started frantically debugging the Electronic Surveillance systems...
we'd been hit by a lock-picking E-bomb, and were losing control over all the inner Locks.
The front bird dog team collapsed under zipgun fire and flashbang grenades.
The front lock suddenly disintegrated, along with both Larson and Merv.
Unit 5707,the second Rapid Reaction Team, mostly Spetznaz veterans, clashed with the attacker while they were sweeping through Zone Two.
We saw several cap-stun grenades shatter against Morwenstow, the point-man, and cascaded back, scattering shrapnel through the entire team.
It took less than two minutes for the attacker to blow through the zone.
The helicopter landed at Infinitek's global headquarters in Cairo.
Infinitek CEO Scott O. Moore greeted Isis on the landing platform. She breathed heavily of the African air, delighted to be home.
Behind her, the sarcophagus containing the package was unloaded from the helicopter and transferred to a sophisticated CCS (cryogenic cooling system),
which was then placed inside another sophisticated CCS (contamination control system) for further protection.
"The other pieces are assembled in Vault 23," Moore said.
She showed her real fangs when she ran into the first RRT, those Pathfinders on loan from the 22nd SAS
I witnessed your actions in the form of a Bellcore corporate security agent. Did you force the chosen path toward evil?
I witnessed your actions in the form of Deputy Prime Minister Abdurahmon Azimov. Did you provoke mania among the people of the Sphinx?
I witnessed your actions as Julie Larson, a victim of your crimes. Did you assassinate me? Did you honor my memory?
rewson SAFE Waihopai INFOSEC ASPIC Information Security Information Warfare IW IS Information Terrorism Terrorism Defensive Information Offensive Information Warfare The Artful Dodger NAIA SAPM ASTS SAO Compsec Computer Terrorism Firewalls Secure Internet Connections RSP JDF Passwords DefCon V Hackers ASWS CUN CISU UFO Pacini Espionage NSA SSL FBI USSS Military White House Undercover NCCS PGP PEM RSA MSNBC AOL CIS AIMSX 3B2 SAMU DATTA E911 HTCIA JANET ram ReMOB UTU BRLO NSLEP SACLANTCEN 877 BZ CANSLO CIDA rsta Compsec 97 LLC JIC rb RDI Mavricks BIOL SADT Steve Case Tools RECCEX Aldergrove monarchist NIOG NADIS NMI BNC STEEPLEBUSH BSS mixmaster BRGE SARL JICA Scully recondo Flame FRU Freeh ISADC Sundevil Investigation ISACA ASVC RRF Bugs Bunny Secure ASIO Lebed ICE NRO NSCT SCIF FLiR bce Flashbangs HRT EODG DIA CID FINCEN NIJ AFSPC site NAVWAN RL NSWC AHPCRC SARD USACIL USCG O CDC DOE FMS NTIS USCODE SIRC ISN LLNL SGC CFC DREO SADRS SHAPE SACLANT DCJFTF SC Lander T Branch SAMCOMM FKS GCHQ SORT NSG EDI benelux

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[mrkurt]

Didn't Palestine disappear in 1416(?) when the Ottoman turks conquered it?

Maybe there has never really been a Palestinian state per se, but this fact doesn't abrogate the Palestinians' rights to a home land of their own. The UN partition plan of 1947 would have given Palestinians and Israelis a state to each. After the 1948 war, Jordan annexed the West Bank portion of Palestine, and the Israelis were arrogant in their assertion that Jordan is the Palestinians' homeland.

I feel that Palestinians participate in terrorism because they see that the world, particularly the major powers, are, for the most part, aligned to Israel. I am tiring of American policy in this situation, that it is Arafat who is the problem, that he must go. They believe that peace would erupt faster than you could say "Jimmy Carter". Sorry, folks, won't happen-- not til the Israelis get serious about leaving the West Bank, where most Palestinians live.

As for the notion that nations are formed not by treaty but through wars, the Israelis and Palestinians know this all too well-- as conquerors and victims, respectively.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[Capsaicin]

This is not complicated. People make it complicated because they want the Jews to be the bad guys.

The Jews are not the bad guys. The Israeli government are the bad guys! The Palestinians are not the bad guys, Hamas, Hezbollah etc are. When you get two lots of bad guys, as evil as Palestinian terror groups and the current Israeli administration going at each other, it adds up to a lot of dead children. On both sides.

Isn't it clear that each bomb Hamas explode on a crowded comuter bus, or each missle the Israeli Airforce lob into a crowded market, merely demands more killing from the other side? Should we expect better from Hamas? I don't think so. Should we expect better from the Israeli state? Definitely! Can we call one side legitimate and the other terrorists? Not with any sense of balance.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[GrodinTierce]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I was merely pointing out Yassin's physical condition to emphasise the fac that Israel targets leaders who are clearly political, and cannot possibly have ever been themselves involved in violence.

While hiding among innocent civilians may be cowardly and morally reprehensible, when the IDF strikes those terrorists while knowing that it will kill large numbers of innocent civilians, it becomes the one in the (moral)wrong.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[GrodinTierce]

For the first 3 points, see below for rebuttal, and for the last, I think the cruelty and injustice in punishing those who had nothing to do with a terrorist attack should be quite apparent.

In addition, I should point out that the suicide bomber in the most recent Haifa attack declared that her motivation was the deaths of several of her relatives at the hands of the IDF. Even ignoring the morality of punishing the relatives of terrorists, simple pragmatism should tell Israel that its policies only creates more hatred and enlarges the pool of potential attackers.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[GrodinTierce]

While it is clearly futile to argue with you, I would point out that "the greatest natural resources on Earth" are probably one of the primary causes of many of the problems that currently plague the Middle East. Disproportionate wealth from natural resources can be an important factor in allowing autocracies to exist and persist; since the government can support itself off of wealth from the ground, it doesn't have to represent or engage with its people.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[GrodinTierce]

I was merely pointing out Yassin's physical condition to emphasise the fact that Israel targets leaders who are clearly political, and cannot possibly have ever been themselves involved in violence. (reposted from above)

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[GrodinTierce]

Are there Palestinian groups that engage in violence that could arguably be legitimate resistance and who actively oppose terrorist activity?

I must agree that I am distressed by the absence of such a group, which would demonstrate to moderate Israelis that there is "someone to talk to".

I do in fact support annexation of the territories by Israel, since I increasingly believe that the only realistic solution is a binational state. Short of annexation, I also support Israeli reoccupation of the territories, since it has already occured in fact, if not in name. For Israel to do so would not only end the corrupt and pathetic reign of the Palestinian Authority, but would force Israel to assume its responsibilities as an occupying power. Read International community supports a deluxe occupation by Meron Benvenisti.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[thirdrock]

Maybe there has never really been a Palestinian state per se,

That's not what I said. There DEFINITELY was a country known as Palestine before the Ottomans conquered it in the 1400's (not sure the exact date.

but this fact doesn't abrogate the Palestinians' rights to a home land of their own.

As soon as people start talking about 'rights' I run a mile. Because 'rights' are a human invention. When we start thinking that 'rights' are some kind of fundamental physical property of the world we live in, we do strange and violent things.

I feel that Palestinians participate in terrorism because they see that the world, particularly the major powers, are, for the most part, aligned to Israel.

No, I think that certain Palestinians committ terrorist acts because they are dirt poor, homeless and angry, and the money Hammas(a Lebanese organisation) pays to their families is the only way out of their desperate crushing poverty.

I am tiring of American policy in this situation, that it is Arafat who is the problem, that he must go. They believe that peace would erupt faster than you could say "Jimmy Carter".

Anyone who believes that would happen is an idiot.

As for the notion that nations are formed not by treaty but through wars, the Israelis and Palestinians know this all too well-- as conquerors and victims, respectively.

Right, so the conclusion would be that neither side is seeking peace, only victory.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[atallah]

Surprisingly, I actually agree with your definition of terrorism.

check this out, it is very interesting http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/429/429lect01.htm

The hatred that most Palestinians have for the Israelis is rooted in the frustration caused by decades of oppression. They are not in a position to compromise, they have very little to lose (not to be interpreted that i agree with the terrorist activities of some).

The Israelis, on the other hand, have everything to gain - their terrorism (using your definition) is just as widespread as that of the Palestinian militants, except that it is presented as "collateral damage" in pursuing military targets or "retribution" (obviously Israel has a far better PR spin machine than the Palestinians do). Bottom line, the IDF kill far more Palestinian civilians than Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa MB.

Golda Meir put it quite eloquently, but only presented half of the solution - the other half would go something like "... they hate us, and we love our children more than we hate them."

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[vladkrupin]

With the current administration so adamant about not criticizing israeli actions...

In other words, if even US current administration goes as far as blacklist those guys, they must be really bad. Either that, or it feels it can censor whoever it wants at any time. Or both. Yes, probably both...

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[ZWithaPGGB]

There's actually a very interesting academic treatise on this exact point here.
However, I believe that people get the government they deserve.
Somewhat akin to the theory that it was, in fact, that the climate made survival difficult, and thus requiring ingenuity and organization, but not so brutal that all that was possible was survival, the reason Northern Europeans came to dominate the world. Those who lived in nice climates with abundant food had no incentive to improve their lot, while those in brutal ones like North America, the Arctic, most of Asia (Siberia, Mongolia, central China, etc.) were too busy surviving to thrive.

slashdot the casbah

[atwtftg]

Of course, just posting this link here means the site will probably be slashdotted out of existence!

At least they're matrix fans...

[st0rmshadow]

anyone notice the red pill/blue pill on kahanetzadak.com

Re:At least they're matrix fans...

[st0rmshadow]

Make me.

Isolated incidents like this don't mean much

[Anonymous Coward]

Two days from now everyone will forget this. Overanalyzing this issue will only lead to FUD. I have full faith in the US government atleast when it comes to this kinds of issues.

Re:Isolated incidents like this don't mean much

[sqlrob]

Becuase /. ain't the government.

They, of course, neglected...

[cliffy2000]

goatse.cx. Now, if that's not a TERROR-ist site, what on earth is?

Re:They, of course, neglected...

[IAR80]

disney.com

Re:Sites List

[st0rmshadow]

Ashcroft's gonna kick down CmdrTaco's doors for affiliating with terrorist websites now!

Typical...

[max99ted]

From the article:

"The State Department said it was yet clear how this would work in practice."
(I am assuming they meant to say 'unclear').

I love it when rules are created as a knee-jerk, shotgun approach. 'Let's just put this down on paper - someone else will figure out how to make it work later...'

Re:Typical...

[mobby_6kl]

>(I am assuming they meant to say 'unclear').

or nuclear!

Re:Typical...

[Master Bait]

Perhaps they will hold off on how well it works depending on if there is any public outcry (if the story is featured in Big Media).

jewish terrorists

[Dysphoric]

well there is something new. when i watch cnn/bbc/sky news the always seem to focus on the palistinian terrorists and the israely army. its refreshing to know that america is at least being a "little" democratic.

1984, right prediction, wrong year.

[perlchild]

Apparently now emitting an idea, is a crime. There goes protected speech, and thoughtcrime is a reality. George Orwell was just 20 years too early.
From there there is not that far to outlawing voting for the opposition. USA citizens should have brought their government to heel when they had the chance(the constitution gave them that power) but now they would have to collectively each commit a crime(a terrorist crime no less) to exert their own constitutional rights... From there, how far to outlawing a repeal of a politician? I guess Arnold's election scared all the politicians with thoughts of "he ain't one of us"...

Re:1984, right prediction, wrong year.

[tomstdenis]

Tool.

Not everything you disagree with is 1984. Fuck. Bush is temporal. E.g. he prolly won't be voted back in...

Or how about instead of pinning all your problems on one fucking guy you guys take responsibility for your own actions. Stop acting so paranoid and just relax!

Tom

Re:1984, right prediction, wrong year.

[rgmoore]

You know, you might try actually reading the article, rather than just spouting off. I realize that this is novel behavior for a slashdotter, but it can actually help. The government is not, in fact, planning on censoring the web sites or making them directly illegal. They are saying that it's not OK to give money to the sites, which actually makes sense- that money will go into the hands of people who will use it to commit murder and other terrorist acts. Since that would classify as aiding and abetting under any reasonable standard of the law, forbidding people to give them money is perfectly reasonable.

Re:1984, right prediction, wrong year.

[kevin_conaway]

wish i had modpoints...well put!

Re:1984, right prediction, wrong year.

[GigsVT]

They get money from ad revenue on the site. By visiting the site, you are giving them money.

I hope your affairs are in order if you clicked through to those links.

Re:1984, right prediction, wrong year.

[blamanj]

The government is not, in fact, planning on censoring the web sites or making them directly illegal.

True enough, but consider this: Under U.S. law, it would be illegal to provide money or other material support to the designated Web sites

Technically, if you clicked on a banner ad at one of those sites, and the site made money from from the clickthrough, you are now providing money to the site. Actually, if they made money from impressions, you'd be providing money merely by visiting the site.

Now, I don't think many advertisers will be lining up to support those sites, but this is definitely on the edge of trampling first amendment rights.

Re:1984, right prediction, wrong year.

[S.Lemmon]

What I think is ironic - it's perfect legal for corporations to buy American politicians because, by the courts, corporations as classified as sort of a "virtual person" and money is considered "free speech". However, a real person can go to jail for giving money to an organization the government labels "terrorist".

In cases of stuff like al Qaeda I don't think many would complain, but how long until something like Greenpeace makes that list? The role of any protest organization is, by it's nature, usually at odds with the government, and often voices unpopular opinions. Anymore, the definition of "terrorist" is so loose and ephemeral it can be applied to almost anyone - not just suicide bombers.

Already in non-terror cases we've seen the Justice Department pushing the Patriot Act as a way for prosecutors to skirt normal civil protections. I don't doubt, for example, if this were happening in the early 60's, you can be sure most involved the civil rights movement would have been labeled "terrorist groups".

Re:1984, right prediction, wrong year.

[knobmaker]

Bush is temporal.

Aren't we all?

Here's what I worry about. If the Shrub wins re-election (he's surely got another pointless war up his sleeve) then Brother Jeb wants his turn on the throne. Can America-as-we-know-it survive 16 years of Bushness?

"Time is the only true purgatory."
Samuel Butler

Re:1984, right prediction, wrong year.

[discogravy]

all politicians are "temporal" (sounds like you mean "temporary" instead, btw.) Politicians come and go, laws stay in place for longer and are much harder to change.

Re:1984, right prediction, wrong year.

[tomstdenis]

I'm sorry, the US was meddling in foreign affairs long before Bush was in power. Watch "bowling for columbine" and write down all of the nations/times where the US changed foreign nations policies [e.g. by overthowing the government].

The problem is the average "god bless american" citizen is so full of patriotic bullshit that they can't just step back, say "THAT AIN'T RIGHT" and vote out militant leaders. Of course democracy is a sham anyways. I mean look at the public debates. They're nothing more than shouting matches and insult flings.

When the potential leaders you can vote for act like 3 yr old kids whenever they meet someone that for all intents and purposes "just isn't them" [for the most part I'd say most leaders have similar goals/views/etc]. Then I think democracy is a sham.

Anyways on point, this "omg something scary, must be 1984" bullshit is really sad. First off, America has been a world-class bully for over fifty years [long before 1984]. The "we're all that" bullshit attitude goes back over two centuries...

The fact that americans are now paranoid is not anything surprising, just sad as it has long since been predictable.

Tom

Re:1984, right prediction, wrong year.

[sig97]

The CIA use to commit murder and other terrorist acts. They don't obey international laws. You support them simply by paying taxes.

Re:1984, right prediction, wrong year.

[pmz]

E.g. he prolly won't be voted back in...

This is true, but the result will be even worse. We'll have a Democrat.

Democrats are enemies of Freedom in their naive quest for social justice. Nationalized health care is simply the last stake in the heart of the free markets that brought us to the top of the world. The world economies are simply too immature to support any socialistic systems without relying on government intervention of tyrannical scale. The Dems should shut up and wait another 400 years for technology to make their idealism reality by default.

Re:Sites List

[ihatesco]

Terrorist site-> www.nethack.org

Wrecking the national college grades since 1996 and before...

Two more things:

[st0rmshadow]

But the law may not enable the United States to block access to the Web sites, if only for technical reasons. What ever happened to freedom of speech? I'm not trying to be a pinko here, and see how, well, it's obviously stupid, but hey... and what the hell's with all those pill ads? "SUPPORT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ARAB WORLD - Click thru and shop for metabolife NOW!"

Unnerving visiting the websites listed...

[pararox]

This certainly sets a frightening precedence; I think I hazard stating the obvious in saying that. While one might make the defense that this governmental "blacklist" is not denying American's Right To Free Speech, let me as you this as a rebuttal:

Having visited the Yahoo article, were you just a bit put off by the prospect of visiting the sites listed, for fear of governmental attrition? I certainly was, and that's a scarry thing.

I did return from my temporary indisposition and clicked on all the sites, merely to see what was what. Strange, though, that a medium of supposedly free communication is now inspiring these thoughts...

Merely food for thought, thanks for listening to me!

Regards,
-pararox-

Re:Unnerving visiting the websites listed...

[c_oflynn]

I wasn't at all concerned, I looked all over them!

Then again I live in Canada....

Re:America died

[Anonymous Coward]

Three good quotes, one by a patriot, two by a fascist

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre."
~ Frank Zappa, 1977

''If this were a dictatorship, it would be a
heck of a lot easier -- so long as I'm the dictator.'' --George W. Bush

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." George W Bush

Re:Sites List

[ihatesco]

Terrorist site -> eazel.com

Putting the "?????" before "Profit!"

paranoia strikes again

[proj_2501]

effectively squelching internet speech? there is no restriction on accessing the website.

Re:paranoia strikes again

[TopShelf]

And most importantly, it's the groups behind the web sites that are the true targets here. /. paranoia runs high on the weekends, too!

Re:paranoia strikes again

[focitrixilous P]

I don't know, putting a link on slashdot might restrict access for a while...

Re:paranoia strikes again

[HungWeiLo]

There's no physical restriction to limit US citizens from visiting Cuba via Canada or Mexico either. But I'm sure you'll get an invite to a sit-down visit with certain interested individuals upon your return.

Re:paranoia strikes again

[proj_2501]

yup, and that's a completely different issue

Re:paranoia strikes again

[proj_2501]

since it's actually the advertiser's money going to the site, i would hold the advertiser responsible. if you buy something from the advertiser, and money from the that sales referral goes to fund the website, then YOUR money has gone to them and thus you are also responsible.

Re:paranoia strikes again

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

effectively squelching internet speech? there is no restriction on accessing the website.

The courts have (correctly, IMHO) also recognized and prevented things that have a so-called "chilling effect" on the exercise of free speech. If you start to give a speech in the town square and a law enforcement officer stands behind you menacingly tapping his billyclub, it might influence your decision to rant against the pigs. The credible threat of retaliation for the exercise of free speech is sometimes enough to cut off that speech -- and thus violates the First Amendment.

Imagine if the Bush administration declared as "terrorist" all sites painting Wesley Clark in a positive light? What if they instead very publicy declared one such site terrorist and then hauled away the webmaster in chains? A lot of people would think twice before putting up their own sites?

And though that example is currently farfetched, remember all the rabid right-wingers who, for about 18 months after 9/11, declared that criticizing the Pesident's policy was the same as attacking the office of the President and thus was only a smidge above terrorism...

Re:paranoia strikes again

[pmz]

there is no restriction on accessing the website.

Website logs contain your IP address and a timestamp leading to your ISP. Your ISP has DHCP logs with your username leading to YOU.

Yeah, no chilling effect at all. This is why anonymity is a requirement for free speech.

There is nothing wrong with Kahane.org!

[sageres]

I see nothing wrong with Kahane websites, or Kahane organization in general. Kahane.org is critisizing Israeli government from the right, thus going against official US position in regards to Israeli government. Irregardless of the believes that Kahane offshot organizations hold, I do not recall a single attack purpotrated against Palestinians by Kahane.org or any affiliated websites, or any affiliated organizations. Is it possible that the US government is trying to influence the policies of Israeli government by banning some of their critics from the right? Does it seem as an attempt of "evenhandidness" towards the Palestinian terrorist groups? Just a note: the founder of Kahane movement was killed by the same person who purpotrated the World Trade Center attack in 1993.

Re:There is nothing wrong with Kahane.org!

[Cracula]

There may be nothing wrong with what you have access to, but do you really think they would make their next terrorist attack public information? What the government is REALLY worried about is the Kahane intranet.

Can anybody figure out what this means?

[mabu]

It seems to me the ability to designate any web site as a terrorist organization, would potentially give the Feds the authority to tap the entire Internet. That's the gist i get from the Patriot Act, not that you can easily figure out what this law actually does...

For example...

I'd love to get my hands on whatever obfusicator our politicans ran on the USA Patriot Act. What a mess:

SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.
Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:
`(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); or'.

Trying to figure out the new powers granted the government in the USA Patriot Act involves a ridiculous array of search-and-replace scavenger hunting.

Re:Can anybody figure out what this means?

[bigberk]

SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.

What a land we live in... we're all free, so long as we're not suspected of being against the government. Fantastic.

i.e. we ain't free peeps, sorry.

Re:Can anybody figure out what this means?

[pclminion]

What's your problem, it's just a diff! Just run it through patch and you'll be ok.

Re:Can anybody figure out what this means?

[Cody Hatch]

Frankly, I'm surprised to see criticism of the style of writing on /.

Laws (well written laws, anyhow) have to be written in a similar style to programs, and for much the same reason - the primary goal is for them to be precise. Human readability comes a distant second. :-)

For example, most laws try and put the definitions in one place, the actual "program logic" in another, and refer very specifically to the definitions by location. Then, if the definition needs to change, you have to patch one line of the law, not 50. It's the exact same issue as solved by #define statements in the C pre-processor, and very nearly the same solution.

When this isn't followed, you get problems. Some poor laws integrated platform specific assumptions into the program logic, which has resulted in headaches. Some laws restricting the governments ability to use "pin registers" (that is, to recording the addressing information, not the content of communications) was written to apply so specifically to phones only, that a judge had ruled there were no(!) resistrictions on "pin registers". It's a bit like assuming you know the size of an int, porting the code to a new platform, then having massive buffer overflow vulerabilities.

Fixing this (just like if it was some spaghetti-coded mess of ill-commented C) requires some major patching - which is what you see above. In fact, one area of the PATRIOT ACT (not quoted above) is actually an attempt to rewrite and clarify the pin register law so it does apply only to a single specific platform, and thus doesn't have massive loopholes in it. (Yes, some sections of the PATRIOT ACT actually do increase civil liberty protections. Beleive It...or Not!)

Much like code, "legalese" is a seperate language, and not particularly human readable. That isn't necesarilly a problem - if you thing GCC will choke on passages of "real" English text, wait till you see what the legal system will do! :-)

Re:Can anybody figure out what this means?

[uid8472]

I think the legal world needs Literate Programming, then. LAWWEB, anyone?

I am now confused

[fireman sam]

"... as aliases for the Jewish group Kahane Chai or Kach, which is suspected of organizing attacks on Palestinians..."

I thought that the US government was on the side of Israel in the war against Palestine. From the news reports the war over there was about Israel trying to stop Palestine from suicide bombing.

So who is the US govt for in this war? The Israel terrorists or the Palestinian terrorists.

PS this is not meant to be a troll. I'd really like to know the stance of the US govt wrt this war.

Re:I am now confused

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

You're not thinking the problem right. Whenever you think about something that happens in the US, think lobbying groups. The US government itself isn't necessarily for or against Israel at core, but Jewish, Muslim, peace-loving ... pressure groups might be, and those have voting power and money. As a result, most administrations tends to show that they support the point of view of whichever lobbying group has more money and voters. It works like that for nearly all US policies, foreign or not.

So in this particular case, my guess is the current administration reckons they have more sympathy and support to gain by denouncing terrorists than by supporting Israel (or extremist jews rather, which may be different).

Re:I am now confused

[bunhed]

So who is the US govt for in this war?

They are for the US government, everyone and everything else is secondary.

Re:I am now confused

[SiliconJesus101]

Well, to be honest with you the US is not "for" either side. The US is against any form of terrorism at all against any country. The reason I think that we tend to fund Isreal is based on the fact that they traditionally act in a more militarily proper fashion than the Palestinian extremist terrorists do. The Israeli army typically has an intended military target (terrorist leader, etc.) however there may be, as in any war, collateral damage. The Palestinian terrorists on the other hand tend to purposely direct their attacks against civilians rather than military targets.

What it all boils down to is a big holy war between two opposing factions. Whenever you have extremists in ANY religion (Christians and the Crusades, Catholics and the Spanish Inquisition, Christians once again in the Salem witch hunts, Jim Jones and his order of cyanide drinking followers, etc.) you will have problems. I think it's pretty bad that everyone focuses on the "atrocities" of the Muslim religion and simply seems to overlook the fact that it is not the religion in general that is bad, it is the few extremists that take their interpretation a bit too far. I'm pretty sure that if the Palestinians had tanks, aircraft, and weaponry to match the Israeli army that they would most likely fight using them instead of suicide bombings. Terrorism has never proven to be a very successful method af waging a war, but in desperation and lack of any other alternatives it is most likely the ONLY alternative the Palestinians have. The only failing point here is that Islam is in fact not a peaceful religion and the Quoran as written dictates that a peacful Muslim is the most vile of beasts and that it is the Muslim duty to eliminate all other religions from the face of the planet. If a Muslim shall die in performing this duty his reward is an afterlife where there is an endless supply of virgins and the rivers run of wine.

For the record, I am an atheist and I loathe the idea of any religion at all. Unfortunately, I think the human species will be plagued with them until some 4.5 to 5 billion years from now when we are engulfed by our sun as it expands into a red giant and eliminates the earth as we know it.

Re:I am now confused

[fishbowl]

"I thought that the US government was on the side of Israel in the war against Palestine. "

All cynicism aside, the US position is to seek peaceful resolutions, and to minimize the extent of combat operatione when they become necessary.

Guerilla/militant fighting, terrorist actions, and coups d'etat are not condoned, at least not according to official policy.

So the US position is to try to avoid chaos. Suicide bombings are the very essence of chaos, and the truth is, nobody has a clue what to do about them.

Identifying people who might be prone to causing an incident of chaos, might be a good start. Suppressing them makes sense as well, but I think supressing their views by censoring their writings crosses a line that ultimately makes the whole strategy worthless. It makes us no better than the Inquisition prosecuting Galileo for saying the Earth moves. (The church *knew* Galileo's argument was sound, they just didn't appreciate him teaching that the church had erred, he ignored their "suggestions" to cease and desist, and he paid the price.) It makes us no better than Khomeni sentencing Rushdie to death for printing a book.

Re:I am now confused

[(v)Jargon(v)]

"So the US position is to try to avoid chaos"

Jackass, the US loves chaos, thats how it stays in power.

Avoid chaos, then why has the US been in every war in the 20+ century. Why is it the only nation to use and continue to use nuclear weapons.

Re:I am now confused

[Locmar]

"It makes us no better than Khomeni sentencing Rushdie to death for printing a book." Interesting, if largely unrelated, note: Khomeini's grandson recently said in an interview that the Iranian government had no right to sentence Rushdie, or anyone else, to death for apostasy. According to him, the Qur'an specifically says that the only person who CAN proclaim a death sentence in such a case would be an "infallible imam," which is understood to not exist (since all men are fallible).

Re:I am now confused

[good soldier svejk]

The reason I think that we tend to fund Isreal is based on the fact that they traditionally act in a more militarily proper fashion than the Palestinian extremist terrorists do. The Israeli army typically has an intended military target (terrorist leader, etc.) however there may be, as in any war, collateral damage. The Palestinian terrorists on the other hand tend to purposely direct their attacks against civilians rather than military targets.

As a Jew and the son of a victim of genocide I am dumbfounded by your lack of knowledge of the practices of the Israeli Defense Forces. At this point Terrorism is nearly their entire mission. The littany of major terrorist attacks, from Der Yasin to Qana to Jenin) is shocking enough, even if we simply ignore the daily torture, summary executions, and expropriations and destruction of property in occupied Palestine. Prime Minister Sharon himself was found responsible by Israel's own Supreme Court of the massacre of 2-3000 Palestinian refugees at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. As punishement he was forced to resign his post as Menachim Begin's (the former leader of the terrorist Stern Gang) Minister of Defense.

BTW, the war was not a holy war until Israel made it one by systematically destroying Palestinian civil institutions and supporting fringe religious groups like Hamas as a foil to the PLO. At its core this is not a religious issue it is a colonial one. Zionism is a non-Jewish ideology in that it contradicts Jewish theology. It is a European Colonial ideology.

Furthermore, a suicide bombing is not automatically terrorist. It is the target, not the method that defines terrorism. Two days ago a bomber blew himself up at a military checkpoint. That was not terrorism.

Your statement that the US is for neither side and opposes all terrorism shows a remarkable ignorance of both American and Israeli history.

I am also disgusted that I must post this anonymously to avoid Zionist harassment.

Re:I am now confused

[Abreu]

No, neither the US or Israel support parking cars full of explosives in Palestinian cities and then blowing them up, mainly because its not cost efective.

They support attacking Palestinian cities with tanks and apache helicopters and destroying homes with missiles.

Thats the correct way to fight a war against terrorists, right?

Re:I am now confused

[Abreu]

You havent the slightest clue of true Islam.

There are peaceful moslems in Europe (most in Spain), Africa, Asia, Latin America, and even in North America.

The vast mayority of Moslems in the world abhor terrorism in the same way that the vast mayority of Christians do.

Both religions do preach spreading out their beliefs through the world. However, most scholars in both religious groups say that this "sharing of the word" must be done peacefully.

Only a very small minority of them (on both groups) talk about killing those who do not submit to the faith.

Re:I am now confused

[SiliconJesus101]

If you'll read my post again you may notice that I never stated a suicide bombing was automatically a terrorist attack. Note how my arguments hinged on the type of target and not the methods used. In light of this, I would think it may be extremely hard for a suicide bomber to do any major damage to a platoon of tanks and soldiers....therefore they are left with terrorist suicide bombings on civilian rather than military targets. You'll also note that in my opinion they are forced to use these methods based on the fact that they do not have the military hardware necessary to wage a proper war against the Israeli army. Suicide bombings have been used for many years that were not considered terrorism. During WWII the Japanese used kamikaze pilots...again...this was an attack against MILITARY targets but still a "suicide bombing" all the same.

As far as the initial war, yes...it was a territorial battle. You can blame Britain for this as their Balfour Declaration was used to establish a homeland for the Jews in what was once a Turkish Ottoman Arab empire. Britain was placed in control of Palestine and basically kicked off this entire mess with the establishment of Jewish colonies in Palestine. The Jews (Israelis) were not happy with the portions they were given and decided to take control of more of the territory. Yes, they also invaded Lebanon (with the intentions of eliminating the PLO, which is fine...it's war...but I do disagree with the massacre of the refugees at Sabra and Shatilla.

As I see it, this is far more than a territory battle. The Muslim extremist world will not tolerate Zionists living on Muslim soil in any capacity at all. They are not willing to live together with the Israelis peacefully as......you guessed it...they are not Muslims. Many wars have been fought over territory with eventual compromises and resolutions. It's just that when an extremist form of religion is involved no compromises can be made; especially when one or both of the parties is unwilling to put aside religion for the sake of a logical and peaceful resolution. I think that the majority of Palestinians would be absolutely thrilled to death if a fair solution was available....it's just that the extremist groups have more power than the non-extremists and are not willing to let this happen.

Re:I am now confused

[SiliconJesus101]

Again, to quote my previous post

"I think it's pretty bad that everyone focuses on the "atrocities" of the Muslim religion and simply seems to overlook the fact that it is not the religion in general that is bad, it is the few extremists that take their interpretation a bit too far.

Any religion interpreted directly would suffer the same issues. As I pointed out....extremists that interpret their religion extremely literally are the MINORITY. If they were the rule, even most Christians and Catholics would see nothing wrong in killing people in the Old Testament fashion (an eye for an eye). Both eastern and western religions have had their share of extremist acts and atrocities. I think however, if you actually read the Quran and I mean....literally...you will find that it also suffers from many areas where it is open for extremist interpretation (or mis-interpretation if you will).

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem; But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: For Allah is oft forgiving, most merciful." 9:5

This can be interpreted as seek out ALL non-believers and kill them off (unless they convert and repent) when it is taken out of context. In context, it could be interpreted to mean ONLY the pagans that attack you and persecute you for your beliefs. Again...very different interpretations for the same passages.

Re:I am now confused

[good soldier svejk]

Not to abuse you, but you seem to be typical self-hating Jew. Here are your tipical lies exposed:

What a specious and offensive statement. Hating Zionism is no more dependent on hating Jews than hating Naziism is dependent on hating Germans or hating Apartheid requires hating Afrikaaners. If a German said he hated Nazism and the practices of the German military in WWII, few would call him a self hating German.

It's not Sharon, but Lebanese "christian" militia who were arguably responsible for Sabra and Shatila arguable massacre. It's very typical: arabs kill other arabs and the jews are at fault.

Israeli court found him responcible for political reasons because of the bunch of leftist who run the Supreme Court of Israel. Sharon did not order killing innocent people in Sabra and Shatila, Israelis did not kill innocent people in Sabra and Shatila. period. Sharon did a lot of wrong and despicable things, but this is not one of them.

It isn't clear who specifically ordered the killings at Sabra and Shatila. However it is clear that Amos Yaron's troops occupied the area and for all intents and purposes stood guard while the South Lebanon Army killed nearly all the inhabitants, 100% non-combatents. The SLA was not a grass-roots militia like Amal or Hizbollah, it was an Israeli armed, trained and recruited proxy army. The IDF actually created it from the remnants of the DFF and other small militias (largely Lebanese Army deserters). The idea that the SLA was independent enough to perpetrate Sabra and Shatila under Yaron's nose without his permission or order is unhistorical. The SLA was Israel's Ostbattalion. Yaron reported to Sharon who was certainly responsible for his actions. Time Magazine reported that Sharon had personally promised Bashir Geymayel's family revenge in the interval between his assasination and Sabra and Shatila. He lost a libel suit against them although it is not clear their information was solid.

This leftist court you describe was the same one which four years later upheld the legality of torture (after an appeal by an IDF soldier out of whom Shin Beth tortured an espionage confession). After finding Amos Yaron responsible for Sabra and Shatila it recommended he not be promoted for three years.

There were no such thing as Palestinian civil institutions. Judea and Samaria were annexed by Jordan before six-day war. So they probably were Jordanian civil institutions. BTW, Israel built a lot of social infrastructure for palestinian and israeli arabs, scools, universities, hospitals, etc.

Of course not, there was no Palestine or Palestinians. A land without a people, blah, blah, blah... There were plenty of Palestinian institutions. There was the PNC, the PLO, the PNA, schools, hospitals, utilities etc. "Israeli Arabs" are Palestinians. The term "Israeli Arabs" is an artificial distinction based on documentation, not ethnicity or heritage. Certainly Israel has built segregated Palestinian schools for the segregated Palestinian neighborhoods in Israel. I was not aware of them building such facilities in the occupied territories. At one point they may have done so. However I doubt it was the IDF doing the building. My comments were entirely about the IDF, and the IDF has devoted a great deal of energy to destroying schools, hospitals and public facilities in the occupied territories.

Yes, funding Hamas was a bad idea. That days it looked ok (ala divide and conquer), but, unfortunately, it did not worked out. Probably modern Islam is a wrong religion to build peaceful society on.

On the contrary, it has been stunningly successful. Palestine is on the brink of civil war. Fatah is paralyzed and the PNA a shambles. Palestinian society is decimated. Not that this helps Israelis in the long run, but it was the intended effect. I do appreciate your candor regarding your hatred of Islam howeve

Re:I am now confused

[good soldier svejk]

If you'll read my post again you may notice that I never stated a suicide bombing was automatically a terrorist attack.

You are right. I misinterpreted the sentence, " I'm pretty sure that if the Palestinians had tanks, aircraft, and weaponry to match the Israeli army that they would most likely fight using them instead of suicide bombings." Actually it reminds me of the (true) scene in Battle of Algiers where the French reporter asks an FLN prisoner (I forget whom),

"Isn't it a dirty thing to use women's baskets to carry bombs to kill innocent people?"

To which the operative replies,

"And you? Doesn't it seem even dirtier to you to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages with thousands of innocent victims? It would be a lot easier for us if we had planes. Give us your bombers, andwe'll give you our baskets."

Note how my arguments hinged on the type of target and not the methods used. In light of this, I would think it may be extremely hard for a suicide bomber to do any major damage to a platoon of tanks and soldiers....therefore they are left with terrorist suicide bombings on civilian rather than military targets.

Your deduction is incorrect. The hated checkpoints are a favorite target. Israeli soldiers are everywhere in the occupied territories, and killing just one is a major victory. Remember the FLN in Algeria or the NLF in Vietnam. This is a war of attrition, a war of national liberation against a colonial occupier. NLF and PAVN sappers were happy to blow themselves up just to cut a hole in the barbed wire big enough to give another guerilla some chance at killing an American. Until the "cease fire" the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade was the most active suicide bombing outfit, and before 2002 they had never (according to the US state Department) attacked a civilian target. In mid 2002 they changed this policy, citing sharply increased IDF attacks on Palestinian civilians. I do not know what the current ratio of terrorist to military assaults is, on a per militia basis or in general.

As far as the initial war, yes...it was a territorial battle. You can blame Britain for this as their Balfour Declaration was used to establish a homeland for the Jews in what was once a Turkish Ottoman Arab empire. Britain was placed in control of Palestine and basically kicked off this entire mess with the establishment of Jewish colonies in Palestine. The Jews (Israelis) were not happy with the portions they were given and decided to take control of more of the territory. Yes, they also invaded Lebanon (with the intentions of eliminating the PLO, which is fine...it's war...but I do disagree with the massacre of the refugees at Sabra and Shatilla.

You missed my point. It is not a simple territorial battle. It is a war of national liberation against a colonial occupier. That is a much thornier issue than a border dispute, especially when an ideology of race (Zionism) is added to the mix. The closest anolog is Apartheid South Africa.

BTW, in 1947 Zionists comprised 31% of Palestine's population and owned just 7% of the land. The UN partition plan handed them half the country, including most of the choicest farmland. As you note, they took more in the 1948 war.

As I see it, this is far more than a territory battle. The Muslim extremist world will not tolerate Zionists living on Muslim soil in any capacity at all. They are not willing to live together with the Israelis peacefully as......you guessed it...they are not Muslims. Many wars have been fought over territory with eventual compromises and resolutions. It's just that when an extremist form of religion is involved no compromises can be made; especially when one or both of the parties is unwilling to put aside religion for the sake of a logical and peaceful resolution. I think that the majority of Palestinians would be absolutely thrilled to death if a fair solution was ava

Re:I am now confused

[Doudine]

What a specious and offensive statement. Hating Zionism is no more dependent on hating Jews than hating Naziism is dependent on hating Germans or hating Apartheid requires hating Afrikaaners.

Hating Zionism is one of symptoms of modern Antisemitism. By hating Zionism you state that Jews should be denied right to be like other nations and live as citizens of their country. So you, being anti-Zionist, do not allow the Jew the privilege of normality, just like the Anti-Semites of the past centuries.

You should not equal Zionism with Nazism or racism, even UN stopped doing this. You hate Zionism, Zionists and thus deny right of Jewish people to live in Israel, because Israel was created by evil Zionists. If one denies right of, say, german people to live in Germany, I'll definitely call him anti-german.

The idea that the SLA was independent enough to perpetrate Sabra and Shatila under Yaron's nose without his permission or order is unhistorical. The SLA was Israel's Ostbattalion. Yaron reported to Sharon who was certainly responsible for his actions

These two were indeed centers of PLO activity. Phalangist were to enter the refugee camps and destroy remaining PLO fighters. Israelis did not give them permission to murder innocent people. Once in the camps, they were not visible to the Israeli soldiers. tila. The Lebanese police estimated the total deaths at 460. Of these, only 35 were women and children. Sharon and Amos Yaron were not responsible for any war crimes in Sabra and Shatila, they were indirectly responsible for not anticipating the possibility of Phalangist violence.

I do appreciate your candor regarding your hatred of Islam however.

I do have no hatred of Islam or muslims. I like and appreciate many aspects of their culture, I've enjoyed learning about Sufism, I like poetry of Rumi and Khafiz. But I'm not going to forget who I am and who are enemies of my people. So I hate Nazis and their contemporary variant: "Palestinians"

I didn't say there was a massacre at Jenin. I said the IDF perpetrated a terrorist attack there.

I't was not a terrorist attack. I't was just a military operation against terrorrists, not a very successful one. Israels could bomb the entire camp, the strategy used by the U.S. Army in Afghanistan. But the IDF deliberately chose another tactic to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualities. Soldiers went from house to house and 23 of them were killed in combat.

However I'll see you your terrorist's memoir and raise you Haganah/IDF Colonel Meir Pa'el's eyewitness account of Der Yasin,

Read what Uri Milshtein says about Colonel Pa'el http://www.ajds.org.au/levitan.htm.

As for your man Begin, here is what Albert Einstein (and several other prominent Zionists) had to say about him,

Great scientists are not nessesarily well informed and unbiased political and military experts.

Shana Toav umetuka.

Shana tova, It's Sukkot now ;-)

Re:I am now confused

[fishbowl]

"Jackass, the US loves chaos, thats how it stays in power."

Maybe what they *say* and what they *do* don't add up. I don't think the official policy actually reads like "stir up shit to keep the brothas down."

I realize the reality of the situation sucks, because men are not infallible, and because power corrupts even the strongest wills with the greatest integrity.

"Why has the US been in every war in the 20+ century."

Only slightly involved in some of them. If I were calling the shots, the US would be involved in no wars that did not reach its borders. Yes, that means the hell with Europe, and fuck communism. So I'm not calling the shots, and that's doubtless a good thing.

"Why is it the only nation to use and continue to use nuclear weapons?"

What the hell are you talking about? Hiroshima? Oh well. Depleted uranium? Sucks to be in the path of any bullet. Where did you get the idea that the US is the only country with nukes? Wait, are you talking about tests? Yeah I hate it too, but I don't think I see your point.

Re:America died

[AVGVSTVS]

As an American, while I do not disagree with your assertion that what America used to be (land of the free, liberty, limited government) is no more, I would like to know which countries DO respect the rights Americans used to enjoy? Europe is hardly a libertarian dream-world, the mid east certainly is not, nor Asia, Africa, Latin America, pretty much all out. This is a global trend, its simply more noticable in the US because we've fallen so far. So to you I would say, yes, we need to wake up, and so does 94% of the world that hates us, maybe if they focused that energy on hating thier own oppressive puppet governments that hold hands with the "US Fascist Regieme" the world might be a better place to live.

ad revenue?

[LuxFX]

Quoted from the article:

Under U.S. law, it would be illegal to provide money or other material support to the designated Web sites

So if the site has ad banners on it, and I visit the site -- if they have a pay-per-view plan on their ad banners, then my visit just generated $0.0005 for the website. Would I be breaking the law?

Let's see...

[errxn]

...for a website to be a terrorist organization, it would have to destroy random targets, and instill fear in the masses. So, umm, don't they mean a site like this?

Re:Let's see...

[faspeed]

it would have to destroy random targets, and instill fear in the masses.

Sounds more like a good old slashdotting!

Re:Let's see...

[carpe_noctem]

Actually, I think /. is a much better candidate for a terrorist website. Just wait till the next Joe Blow posts his cool case mod pics up on the web. =)

Re:Let's see...

[Valar]

Destroy random targets? So don't you mean something more like this.
As far as intilling fear, I still think goatse wins the price though...

Re:Let's see...

[TiggsPanther]

What about Slashdot?

It destroys random bandwidth, and instills fear in the sysyadmins who recognise their company website linked from an article.

Tiggs

2600??

[dciman]

Just wait....
How long do you think it will be until the MPAA, RIAA, or some other "Big Business" (friend of the Bush family) convinces the honorable John Asscroft that 2600 is a terrorist organization. After all, they talk about security exploits, fun with the phone systems, etc.

If this goes unchallenged, the possibility of abuse against people "not with the team" is almost a definite.

Re:2600??

[Licinius]

If this goes unchallenged, the possibility of abuse against people "not with the team" is almost a definite.

No, it isn't. When's the last time 2600 planned the murder of people because of their race/religion? Correct, never. These groups specified by the government are actually terrorist groups, they weren't listed because of some agenda by big business and this isn't an issue of free speech. They aren't stopping you from visiting the sites, just giving them monetary support.

Re:2600??

[kir]

Dude... when will you learn? You cannot respond to alarmist anti-bush spewage and get anywhere on slashdot. Look... the parent got a "+3, Insightful". INSIGHTFUL? Why do you think that happened? ....... Because the majority who visit (visit = post/mod) the forums on slashdot are from the left - regardless if they're from America, Europe, Russia, wherever - they're liberal.

When you respond to these kind of posts, more often than not you either 1) get personally attacked, 2) are told to stop reciting Fox News propoganda or 3) get no response what-so-ever. The 2nd one is particularly interesting for me because I don't have Fox News where I live (Japan), yet I'm told more often than not that I'm a drone of the Fox News Channel. Hmmm...

I only read the comments now just to see some of the more witty replies. Unfortunately, they're few and far between.

Re:2600??

[Xoder]

I agree with you, and at the risk of being redundant, I would like to offer a change to your post. The second statement of your post should read:

"When's the last time 2600 planned the murder of anyone?"

That said, I still fear that at some point (especially if GWB gets re-"elected") 2600 might get itself onto such a list. Along with the ACLU, the EFF and a whole bunch of people who are pro-individual-rights.

Yes, I realize this fear's irrational.

So's the Bush administration.

If you read the article....

[ebyrob]

You'd see that donating money to the website is now illegal, and banks are supposed to "freeze funds" of those operating the website... Though, they weren't sure how this would work in practice.

Even all out blocking was mentioned thusly:
But the law may not enable the United States to block access to the Web sites, if only for technical reasons.

That's funny, I don't recall the bill of rights and free speech being called "technical reasons" when I studied US history in high-school and college.

At the very least, any good slashdotter over 18 should go read every site on that list and make a determination for themself. To even consider that the US needs to "wholly block" sites from another country, seems... unfree. (Note: I'll be doing my reading from an internet cafe and I'll be paying in cash)

Call it a "war on terror" if you like, I'll continue to consider it a "war on freedom".

Re:If you read the article....

[practicalista]

Call it a "war on terror" if you like, I'll continue to consider it a "war on freedom".

Which is correct. One thing we have to understand is that with freedom of speech there comes a price.

In order to allow all points of view to be heard we have to accept that terrorists, peodophiles, facists and all the things we despise in society will also use these rights to further their own ends.

In the end if we try to limit the free speech of the most despicable people in society, we actually give government a method to limit everybody's free speech.

It is sad but true. To have our rights we have to accept the downside ...

Re:If you read the article....

[MasterSLATE]

I respect your views and agree on most parts, but why go to an internet cafe? Stand up for the freedoms that you seem to back, and surf from home.

Unless you were just kidding..
Either way, I think everyone should go to the websites listed in the article. It's not illegal and the U.S. can't label all /.ers as possible terrorists.

Re:If you read the article....

[che.kai-jei]

yeah well see you all in guantanamo for the next international slashdot meetup! ; /

Re:If you read the article....

[CrowScape]

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech." As it's an amendment, it overrides anything that comes before it in the Constitution. Since Article 1, Section 8 comes before it, the First Amendment's prohibition of Congress making a law abridging the freedom of speech takes precedent over Congress's authority to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper." Find something in the later Amendments if you want to get around the First.

Re:If you read the article....

[ebyrob]

Well... It's a tough question. Surf anonymously or let others eaves-drop on what you do and read.

Normally, I choose anonymity, encryption and the like. I don't see why I should make myself easy to spy on.

In this case, you may be right. I'll think on it.

Re:If you read the article....

[GeffDE]

It's not illegal and the U.S. can't label all /.ers as possible terrorists.
Yes it is possible for the US to label /.ers as possible terrorists. while it may not be ethical for the US government in general, and George W. Bush and John Ashcroft in particular, to label us as possible terrorists, they definately can. with the passage of the Patriot Act, the government now has powers similar to those of the governments of Orwell's 1984 or Hitler's Germany. While I don't want to get off topic, I really must say that it is sad that this is the case. Also, I personally wouldn't want the FBI or Ashcroft's personal Gestapo to come knocking at my door at 4 am like 1984 or 1930s Germany, so I am not going to visit the sites listed.

Re:If you read the article....

[b-baggins]

Of course, if we really lived in a police state, you would have been hauled off to jail by now for even making this post.

Comparing the Patriot Act and Ashcroft to the Gestapo or the KGB, or the Chinese Secret Police just shows your stunning ignorance of what tyrannny really is.

Re:If you read the article....

[che.kai-jei]

really? don't you think all tyrannies have to start somewhere? and if they did, wouldn't it have been nice if there domination and growth had been checked by the vigliance of their own citizens beofre becoming a collective millstone around the neck of the free thinking people around thw world in a position to be able to be concerned about it? and what heppned when there isnt anyone left to fight the tyrannies? isnt america supposed to be the example to the rest of the world?

Re:If you read the article....

[MasterSLATE]

Actually, we'd be taken off to jail for *thinking* about making these posts...

Re:If you read the article....

[ebyrob]

Um... What do you think the response to this would be in down-town Baghdad?

Just because *you* aren't currently sitting in jail, just because *I* don't currently have a knock at the door, doesn't mean there isn't some jack-booted thugging going on. Have you studied the US' treatment of Japanese American's during WWII? It was only different from the German treatment of Jews by degree of severity. Of course it must be okay if *our* government did it...

Re:If you read the article....

[DLR]

Freedom of speech (or any freedom) is not the freedom to do what ever you want to do or say. There are already just, valid laws in place to prevent certain types of speech. Don't believe me? go yell "FIRE!!" in a crowded movie theater. Or stand in front of city hall spewing profanity. You'll be arrested pretty quickly. Freedom of any kind comes with responsibility, something that has been forgotten in the past several decades.

For example the freedom of information that is so highly regarded in the Open Source community. This freedom came with a responsibility to not steal information or software. (Please note that I am not attempting to start a flame war about whether or not said info or software should have been free in the first place, just a recognition that it was protected under the then current laws). These freedoms were handled irresponsibly by the members of the Open Source community, leaving us with reactions like the DMCA from the offended companies.

"War on freedom"? Which freedom is this a war against? The freedom to hijack airplanes full of innocent civilians and crash them into skyscrapers full of more innocent civilians? The restrictions on personal freedoms that permitted that have been in place for over 100 years. The only "war on freedom" I've seen is the Homeland Security Act, and that's more than enough for me.

Don't get me wrong, I support the restrictions against those Web masters if there is any evidence that they are supporting a terrorist organization, and if (and only if) terrorists are defined as a person or group who's intention is to motivate political change by harming (for the purpose of causing fear/terror) non-combatents. But not if terrorists are defined as anyone who has a different political viewpoint than your own. However, unless those Web pages are organizing persons to commit specific crimes (i.e. racketeering), there is nothing illigal on them and anyone should be allowed to read them.

Re:If you read the article....

[pmz]

we actually give government a method to limit everybody's free speech.

Because, as more children are protected by "for the children" legislation, eventually everyone becomes a child (both in law and in the mind, due to having no responsibility whatsoever).

Re:If you read the article....

[ebyrob]

The ARTICLE says that the US may not be able to block the web site. This sentence implies that the government wants to do so, but there is no information at all to support that idea. Nowhere does it say that the government has any intention of doing so.

I think it is significant to see this kind of wording in the popular press. It smacks of propoganda, no matter who is responsible for the line.

The rest is all conjecture sure, but I'm not at all happy with the possibilities and innuendo here. Why should I be? How long do you think it takes to turn popular opinion into law, especially in this climate?

Finally... What evidence do I see, in the article or elsewhere, showing actual ties to terrorist activity (read people dieing) by the operators of those websites? How far are we really from McCarthy era type black-balling with a few more teeth? I certainly haven't seen anything to show me this *isn't* going on...

This is NOT a "web freedom" thing,

You're right, it affects far more than just the web.

and in this case not even an out of control Bush administration thing.

Um... How do you know that exactly? Identifying terrorists is a rather recently added power of the Executive branch sure. What shows me it isn't being abused?

This isn't news

[Have Blue]

For one thing, Kahane Chai itself is already on the list. For another, if the same thing happened with a book publisher, TV channel, or whatever this wouldn't even be on Slashdot.

Re:This isn't news

[Sir Haxalot]

For one thing, Kahane Chai itself is already on the list. For another, if the same thing happened with a book publisher, TV channel, or whatever this wouldn't even be on Slashdot.
Yes but this didn't happen with a book publisher, TV channel, or whatever, which is why it's on Slashdot.

providing material support

[lseltzer]

The classification is about providing monetary or other material support to the site which the government considers to be a front for Kach/Kahane Chai, which are actual terrorist organizations. These groups, by the way, are flat-out banned in Israel if I'm not mistaken. The press is much freer there than in any other country of the region, but it's not like they have a 1st amendment.

I actually met Kahane about 25 or 30 years ago during his JDL (Jewish Defense League, an only slightly less objectionable organization) days. The man was a dangerous racist/fascist with very little support here or in Israel. I don't think it's mentioned in the articles, but Kahane was shot dead by an Arab in NYC, I believe in the early 80's.

Typical.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the list:

Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (as of October 5, 2001)

1. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
2. Abu Sayyaf Group
3. Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
4. Aum Shinrikyo
5. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
6. Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)
7. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
8. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
9. Hizballah (Party of God)
10. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
11. al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
12. Kahane Chai (Kach)
13. Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
14. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
15. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
16. National Liberation Army (ELN) 17. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
18. Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
19. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
20. PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)
21. al-Qa'ida
22. Real IRA
23. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
24. Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)
25. Revolutionary Organization 17 November
26. Revolutionary People's Liberation Army/Front (DHKP/C)
27. Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
28. United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)

Why does it NOT surprise me that the IRA isn't on there? They've engaged in terrorist activities.

Re:Typical.

[bj8rn]

Why does it NOT surprise me that the IRA isn't on there? They've engaged in terrorist activities.

Because they have surrendered their weapons and are out of the terrorism "business"?

Re:Typical.

[juglugs]

No - They still have weapon caches... When did they come out of the terrorism business?

The List

[idonotexist]

Available in Text

Domain names are included with the list of the organizations.

Re:The List

[superyooser]

Very interesting! Where did you search to find that? Gpo.gov is intimidatingly large.

Re:The List

[TCaM]

Was that the Peoples front of Judea or the Popular Peoples Front?

splitters.

How Long...

[jeffkjo1]

How long before this is a classification that geeks strive for?

"Getting the google counter and endless slashdot mod points is not enough... I want to be an internet terrorist!!!!"

Consider this.

[www.sorehands.com]

Let say that a site is run by terrorists, does money that goes towards running the site that puts forth the ideas of the group, considered supporting terrorism?

If you consider this about an anti-abortion group, would a site containing anti-abortion retoric by the same group who bombed an abortion clinic. Would that make any donation to their website or materials used in a picket would be considered supporting their terrorist activities?

But is it totally wrong?

[abhikhurana]

It reminds of of the article a few days back that Indian government had asked its ISPs to block access to a particular groups's yahoo group. As ISPs couldn't implement that, they blocked all the yahoo groups.
Anyway, the question is that are such type of actions completely unjustified? I mean I know they are against freedom of expression, but what are the alternatives for a government when faced with such a situation. Take the example of SCO. Even though they emanate a lot of FUD, many people still believe that they are right (What was that group which bought SCOX shares?) The point is most people don't research the claims made by others. They believe what is aligned with their existing belief system and reject the rest (the reason for all the religious wars I think). So now faced with such a situation, should the govermnent, with the knowledge that this may lead to some other people joining the movement without knowing all the facts about it, be justified in imposing some kind of restrictions? I mean I know it will make many people extremely mad, and maybe make them join the ranks of such an organisation, even though they might not have under normal circumstances, but is this number is smaller than the total number of people who would have been affected otheriwse, is the government justified?

Re:But is it totally wrong?

[The Cydonian]

So now faced with such a situation, should the govermnent, with the knowledge that this may lead to some other people joining the movement without knowing all the facts about it, be justified in imposing some kind of restrictions?

I said this during the Kynhun episode, and I'll say this again:- if you want something restricted, the best you can do is to NOT GIVE IT FREE PUBLICITY. Kynhun had exactly 34 members when the ban first came into place; now it has 200-odd subscribers. Fighting terrorism is both physical and mental; as a nation that's successfully fought terrorism (in Punjab and Mizoram among other places) in the past, we certainly should know better than this.

Indeed, there can be no justification for stupidity, governmental or otherwise.

Btw, about the Kynhun ban; been told by someone apparently knowledgeable about Indian law that CERT-IN's actions are totally unjustifiable in a court of law, and that, all it needs is a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to overturn it. Yup, there's a reason why Article 14 guarantees the Freedom of Speech as a Fundamental Right to all Indian citizens.

Also, perhaps, a strong case for an EFF-type organisation in India to increase awareness about citizens' rights in the digital arena.

Re:It's an open door

[1stflight]

Sorry, it's been noted several times that speech that may incite others to violence is not considered free speech.

Awhile back there was a Christian/Pro-Life website up that listed pro-choice doctors and the order in which they'd been knocked off in. Guess what, the 1st Amendment was no shield for them.

This is no different.

While they're at it, here are a few more...

[defile]

• Jewish Task Force
• National Alliance
• The Knights Party

Why hasn't the KKK been targetted in the war on terror? They've been terrorizing our nation for more than 100 years, and they're very public.

Hooray, so Tom Delay's a terrorist?!

[im a fucking coward]

Well, he isn't a web site, but if those sites are terrorist sites, what did Mr. Delay's remarks in Israel make him?

The solidarity between the United States and Israel is deeper than the various interests we share.

It is the solidarity of all people -- in all times -- who dream of and sacrifice for liberty. It is the solidarity of Moses and Lincoln. Of Tiananmen Square and the Prague Spring.

I don't know about Prague, but the rest of 'em sorta ended on a down note there Tom, Sir.

Israel's liberation from Palestinian terror is an essential component of that victory. And it's a liberation we are determined to secure -- not merely a paper-thin cease-fire. False security is no security, and murderers who take 90-day vacations are still murderers. The violence must stop.

Wow, to Tom! Let's see, we stop terrorist by blowing them up right? You must be advocating the annhilation of anyone who disagrees with this view point, especially if they're those rascally Palestinians?

God, please grant these, our lost legislative body, the clearness of mind to see that ROBBING THE CIVILIANS OF ANY NATIONALITY OF THEIR GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH is bad, damn naughty, and I can't just keep apologizing all over the place for them. Please lord, do smite them 'til they see they error of their, yeah, though possibly unintentional, in reality (where it all counts anyway Mighty One), satanically evil ways.

Thanks in advance!!

Confused

[astro]

So, in my never ending quest to get added to the FBI/NSA/etc watch list, I visited each of the sites referenced in the main post.

I will admit to feeling naive about it, but the site kahanetzadak.com REALLY freaks me out. This is the worst kind of racism - it's as bad as American Aryan sites. Total hate. From my point of view, it's as bad an advertisement for modern Judaism as I have ever seen.

The reason I state my response title as "Confused" is that I really wonder if this isn't some reverse-propaganda put up by (equally racist) arabs / palestinians to make the Jews look bad (awful).

For the record: as a whitebread motherf'ing American cracker, I have no business even having an opinion, but I have long thought that our (our country's) support of what I understand to be a Jewish occupation of Arab lands to be absurd.

Again, I was just shocked at the uncloaked hate and racisim that flows from that site. Quote from the front page (capslock is theirs): "DO YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO PLAY WITH THEIRS?".

Gah, we live in a fucked up reality.

-astro

Re:Confused

[im a fucking coward]

Uhmmm, so if your kids get blown up by Taoist fundamentalists, your gonna bake 'em cookies?

The thing that oughtta scare you is that we, as a country, are trying to keep people who have a voice, any damn crazy voice if you want to posit it in that fashion, to shut the fuck up. No more freedom for you fella, you used it up three paragraphs ago?

Call me nuts, but I want to know what these people are thinking. Hell, I don't agree with your intellectual endeavor here, but I'm interested in your point of view, cuz your the screwball who posts them. Good for you! Good for me! Free exchange of ideas may help one of us to realize why Nazi's and Christian burned books and people, for a subtle example.

Me, I'm clueless, and a fucking cow turd. //snip
Gah, we live in a fucked up reality. //snip

Sure, but it's such a better fucked up reality than anyone else has...

Terror Web Sites

[Metaldsa]

Seem like the biggest target for any western hacker. A group dedicated to bombing civilians would be a fun hacking target. No law enforcement to punish you if you get caught and possibly helping fight the war on terror by disrupting online actions. At the very least I would enjoy a slashdotting of this sites for the time being.

As for privacy concerns, well if the Chinese government can't stop their people from getting to web sites and discussion boards with the help of the biggest US tech companies (Great Firewall of China) then I don't worry about the US's attempt of blocking me.

very soon...

[ece]

slashdot will be flaged as a terrorist website because of the slashdoting effect. ewwwwwww

If you RTFA....

[shirameroix]

Apparently Jewish dating services are a major source of terrorism funding in the region.

Re:Chill out

[Esion Modnar]

Essentially, don't get caught donating money to the group that put up the site. The site itself is just a server in a room somewhere. It needs electricity, a reliable network connection, and some TLC from the sysadmins.

It would have no idea what to do with money.

DANGER!!!

[samantha]

That instruments of online speech are now added to "terrorist organizations" is a very clear and present danger to internet freedom and to 1st Amendment rights of US citizens. It is also a clear danger of worldwide moves to destroy internet sites the US government decides it does not like. The designation of terrorist organization itself is not required to be supported in any legal proceeding whatsoever before assets are seized and friends/visitors/parties involved of/with the organization face possible long prison terms if prosecuted and immediate pre-trial (if any) seizure of assets. If the US administration pushes ahead with "Patriot II", anyone who supports a arbitrarily named "terrorist organization" including now websites, could be labeled an enemy combatant and have US citizenship (if any) revoked. This means that even the tissue of Bill of Rights protectin would be removed.

These are very Dark Times. All means of opposing this latest action in the so-called "War on Terror" must be examined and any that will help must be taken.

The Real IRA is on the list.

[caveat]

I had 5 Irish guys rooming with me for the summer, so I'm pretty clear on this. The IRA in the past has engaged in terrorist activities, true, but as part of the latest round of negs, they agreed to back down in exchange for being taken off the list. Apparently, there's been some very real reforms in the IRA, and they've pretty much backed down from being so...terrorist. The Real IRA, OTOH, is an ultranationalist, ultraviolent splinter group of the IRA that is a serious, hardcore terrorist group; they've pledged they won't stop the killing until Northern Ireland is "unoccupied" by the Brits and "cleansed" of Prottys. Good old-fashioned religious terror.

This is the problem

[jd]

With labels such as "terrorism". Anything can be defined as such, if you select the facts carefully enough. Likewise, any group can be labelled as "legitamate", if you also select the facts carefully enough.

Labels are convenient at times, but they can be over-used.

[OT for above troller and moderators]: Re:Yeah

[robslimo]

Your moment of glory per your .sig seems to have gone to your head.

At the risk of losing carma (sorry, reference to the game Carmageddon), I'd like to point out that this fellow seems to be trying to herald a new type of first poster. His posts are equally vaccuous as the simple troll poster's "Frist Psot", yet the folks with mod points often mod him/her/it up simply because its is the first msg they see whilst basking in the glory of finding that they have mod points.

When I have moderator points, I immediately go to articles posted *not to the main page*. I'll go first to the 'Science' category and look for comments worthy of mod'ing up. Incidentally, I may find a few trolls or flamboyantly igoramous comments that might need mod'd down, but those are few. The trolls and whores frequent the articles posted to the main page so that they may enjoy their 15ms of fame.

-RobSlimo [not roblimo]

Re:[OT for above troller and moderators]: Re:Yeah

[Sir Haxalot]

At the risk of losing carma (sorry, reference to the game Carmageddon), I'd like to point out that this fellow seems to be trying to herald a new type of first poster. His posts are equally vaccuous as the simple troll poster's "Frist Psot", yet the folks with mod points often mod him/her/it up simply because its is the first msg they see whilst basking in the glory of finding that they have mod points.
When I have moderator points, I immediately go to articles posted *not to the main page*. I'll go first to the 'Science' category and look for comments worthy of mod'ing up. Incidentally, I may find a few trolls or flamboyantly igoramous comments that might need mod'd down, but those are few. The trolls and whores frequent the articles posted to the main page so that they may enjoy their 15ms of fame.
So sue me.

Re:look again

[Spad]

The Real IRA != the IRA

Most posters are oversimplifying this...

[Decius6i5]

Is this an affront to freedom of speech?

The government isn't banning the website. They are banning material support for the organization that runs the website. IE you can't donate funds to the organization. This is because they use the funds you donate to murder people. It is probably useful to have information about these sites available to the public, so that you don't get duped into thinking that your donation supports a charity. Let us not forget that Al'Q was often funded unknowingly by American muslims who thought they were feeding poor children.

This isn't quite the same as banning speech. Certainly it can get a little grey, and it could be abused, but its not obviously wrong in and of itself. Are you allowed to run a website which advocates the ideas of one of these terrorist groups? Yes. If you are actually involved in the operations of said terrorist groups are we going to let your free speech rights get in the way of preventing us from arresting you or shutting down your operations? Hell no! There is a difference.

Confused about the US opposing an anti-palestinian group?

Reading Z Magazine will rot your brain just as fast as watching Fox news. Yes the US supports Israel. When this is said, what it means is that the US supports Israel's right to exist. This does not mean that the US agrees with everything that anyone in Israel does, or even everything the Israeli government does. The left argues otherwise because oversimplification of the issue makes it easy for you to jump to the conclusions they advocate. The US has also expressed support for a Palestinian state. The difficulty with this the Israeli/Palestinian issue is not just inbred generations of mutual hate, but also that its proven almost impossible to balance the interests of the two parties. No one has figured out how to give the Palestinians what they want/need without creating a situation that threatens Israel's long term existence. In short, things are always much more complex then you think. I'm over simplifying too.

Think Kahane

[BSDevil]

AFAIK, Meir Kahane's been on the State Deptartement's list of terrorists for a few years now, since even before the War On Terror started. Him and his boys are the Israeli equivalent of the Black Panthers - extremist militants who happen to get a kick out of killing Muslims, and manage to see the whole world as a Muslim conspiracy against the pious Jews.

Regardless of which side the US Governent is one, Kahane is the kind of group that would be blocked.

Re:Think Kahane

[red floyd]

AFAIK, Meir Kahane's been on the State Deptartement's list...

Just a minor point... you mean the LATE Meir Kahane.

For those who don't know who Kahane is, he founded the JDL (think Irv Rubin -- the guy who hanged himself in prison). While I believe that Jews have the right to defend themselves, Kahane was nothing but a thug.

Because the KKK is generally nonviolent

[caveat]

At least in the last 50 years or so, they have been. I'm not saying members of the KKK aren't violent, but the organization as a whole doesn't go on midnight lynching rides anymore. Sure, they constantly spew a rhetoric of hatred and intolerance, but hey, if you think that kind of speech should be restriced, you're free to move to Europe.

I personally think that hate speech, the most distasteful and disturbing, should also be the most protected, precisely because it's unpopular..."It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny." - James Fenimore Cooper.

Re:Chill out

[fishbowl]

"Essentially, don't get caught donating money to the group that put up the site."

So what would happen if the EFF supported their cause on 1st Amendment grounds? I looked at the websites, and I disagree with the views expressed -- but I don't see anything to warrant suppression.

If the US Government wants to make it a crime to give money to an individual, they should just say so, without clouding the issue by bringing the red herring of the internet into the picture.

It would make as much sense to post their phone number as their web address. So I suppose it makes me a terrorist, because I think that these people should be accountable for their crimes, but that drawing attention to their websites does not accomplish anything at all. Well, it probably gets them a bit more sympathy and a bit of free advertising. I'd be pretty damned suprised if it hurts their pockets one bit.

Maybe there is evidence that the people responsible for the websites are criminals. If so, then bring them to justice for their crimes using the tried-and-true approach. Whining about their website is just weak, and it reveals a weakness in the leadership of the US.

kahane.org is one of the ugliest websites

[jlowery]

and I'm not just talking content here! Screams for a web designer.

Re:Chill out

[anthony_dipierro]

Nothing is being censored, people. Just don't get caught donating money to the site.

So if the government banned donations to the ACLU website, would that likewise not be censorship?

WOW ... rite on the money!

[Tensor]

That is in fact, EXCATLY what happened to me. I was about to paste the address when i thouhgt, well what if they are monitoring the logs as we speak.

Since i am not an American BUT i travel a lot to the us for business the possibility of entry denial by immigrations was too expensive for me to risk it.

i could use a string of proxies, but it was too much trouble for sightseeing.

The land of the free indeed.

Re:WOW ... rite on the money!

[ameoba]

But posting the URL on Slashdot, resulting in their slashdotting, is a way to directly strike a blow against the terrorists & is clearly the patriotic thing to do.

Re:WOW ... rite on the money!

[Viceice]

You mean siteseeing ?

Article Summary is Misleading

[solman]

The US has not listed a website as a terrorist organization. It simply listed it as an alias for a known terrorist organization.

Kahane.com is not being banned for saying bad things. It is being banned FOR CARRYING OUT TERRORIST ATTACKS IN WHICH CIVILIANS HAVE BEEN KILLED IN AN ATTEMPT TO ACCOMPLISH POLITICAL GOALS.

Listing kahane.com as an alias for Kahane Kach just makes it clearer to US citizens that aiding any group claiming that name is a felony.

It makes as much sense to claim that kahane.com is a non-terrorist political offshoot of a terrorist group as it does to claim (as the Europeans did until recently) that Hamas is a non-terroist organization.

This notion that groups which support the killing of civilians can be split into terrorist and non-terrorist components simply does not pass the smell test.

I'm glad to see the Bush administration applying this principle uniformly.

Finally!

[Coppit]

The /. effect fights terrorism!

And now they'll all get slashdotted

[Animats]

These are sites run by militant Jewish organizations. Kahane is the descendant of the old Jewish Defense League started by Meyer Kahane, which did some minor terrorist-type stuff in the US in the 1970 and 1980s. Their slogan was "Every Jew a .22". (Today, that sounds like wimpy firepower. The US was less heavily armed back then.)

Kahane sounds a lot like most extreme right-wing religious groups. The extremists of the Christian right, the Jewish right, and the Islamic right have far more in common with each other than they like to admit.

I'm surprised that the Bush Administration is acting in this area. Bush Jr. (unlike Bush Senior) gets considerable support from the American Jewish community in exchange for his support of Israel. There's got to be more political story behind this.

Re:And now they'll all get slashdotted

[Psykosys]

Except Kach has committed a huge number of terrorist acts in the past, and their website exists to solicit donations. It is clearly a website whose purpose is funneling money to terrorists. Anyone in the Jewish community who opposes the State Dept.'s actions on this matter will be acting very foolishly and will be discrediting themselves. Also, the JDL's acts could not possibly be called "minor" - read about them at Wikipedia

Do your part!

[Acts of Attrition]

Do your part on the war on terrorism by slashdotting this page! Yes, you too can be part of the solution. Uncle Slash wants you!

The list still isn't complete

[davmoo]

The number one terrorist that needs to be on that list is Attorney General John Ashcroft. He's done more to undermine the Constitution than any foreign organization has ever dreamed of.

Re:The list still isn't complete

[im a fucking coward]

The number one terrorist that needs to be on that list is Attorney General John Ashcroft. He's done more to undermine the Constitution than any foreign organization has ever dreamed of.

There's the sorry, sad, god's honest truth. Disgusting.

Re:The list still isn't complete

[Radish03]

"It's Mr. Ashcroft's job to enforce the law"
Exactly. He is the one enforcing an unconstitutional law. Thus proving parent's point.

The US is opposed to all terrorists

[solman]

It doesn't matter if they are Israeli or Palestinian.

It just happens to be the case that right now you see many more killings by Palestinian terrorists than by Israeli terrorists. This is probably because Israel is in political control of the region right now.

When (if?) peace is achieved and some of the settlements are evacuated, you can expect to see a far greater degree of activity from Israeli terrorist groups. Right now, they would have to be strategic morons to do anything. (Obviously there are at least a few handfuls of strategic morons).

Re:The US is opposed to all terrorists

[knobmaker]

It just happens to be the case that right now you see many more killings by Palestinian terrorists than by Israeli terrorists. This is probably because Israel is in political control of the region right now.

I think this is only true if you consider the killings of Palestinians by the Israeli military to be non-terrorist in nature. This distinction may not make a lot of difference to the dead Palestinians, who have died in much larger numbers than Israelis have.

Re:The US is opposed to all terrorists

[solman]

Traditionally terrorism has refered to intentional attacks against civilians with the purpose of spreading terror (presumably to some political end). This has usually meant the intentional extralegal killing of civilians. Things have become muddled after 9/11, but John Ashcroft and the far left notwithstanding, I think that very few people disagree with this definition even today.

US policy has been consistent in this regard. Countries have the right to pursue terrorists and any deaths which result from this pursuit, even the death of innocents, are not terrorist acts. They are unfortunate casualties of the fight against terrorism.

There is ample reason to believe that Israeli attempts to minimize civilian casualties are inadequate. But at a minimum it is clear that they are making some effort in this regard, and that Israeli lives have been lost as a consequence. It is easy for us in the US to object to the relative weight given by the Israeli government to Israeli lives vs. Palestinian lives, because no American lives are on the line. I wonder how many innocent Iraqi lives WE would trade the life of one American soldier.

Re:The US is opposed to all terrorists

[swordgeek]

Um no, not really.

Count the number of Israelis dead vs. the number of Palestinians.

For that matter, count the number of Iraqi civilians killed by the US since their invasion, vs. the number who died in the world trade center destruction. There have been well over twice as many Iraqi civilians killed, according to independent observers.

The US may well be opposed to all terrorists, but only if they define a terrorist as anyone who disagrees with their world view.

Furthermore, the US backed Israel when the were defending (by killing) against Palestinians who were literally throwing rocks. The only thing that's really changed in the middle east is that the Palestinians have got better arms than they did before, and the US is throwing its weight around to achieve its own ends.

Enforcement Possible For This One Only Because...

[Salis]

The Israelis that run the website are not hiding in the mountains somewhere in Pakistan. The fact that the Bush Administration put the website on the list is political...they're sending a message that they will consider certain Israeli organizations to be terrorists if they behave like terrorist Palestinian organizations.

The people who run this website may or may not have family in the U.S or might want to visit the U.S in the future. Cutting them off from that access is a punishment, certainly.

But will this work for any fundamentalist Islamic terrorist website? Hardly.

This has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with accountability of ones' actions on the Internet. Anyone is free to spread hatred on the Internet. The Bush Admin is saying that, whenever possible, we don't want those people running the websites to be any friends of ours.

Sabotage vs. Terrorism

[Doc Ruby]

Unfortunately, Americans are getting hands-on experience in infowar. One early lesson is the distinction between "terrorism" and "sabotage". When something bad happens, it's sabotage. It's not terrorism until lots of people are scared, which usually requires a mass medium.

Sabotage is destruction of important resources, like trains, planes, buildings, bridges, factories, banks, farms, networks. It is material destrucion, all too well known to people through generations of war. Sabotage is expensive for both parties, and society has developed more or less effective security defenses. It has always been accompanied by terror, which spreads through a population affecting morale - "war, and rumors of war" go hand in hand.

Terrorism emphasizes the terror generated by sabotage. It attacks the morale of a population, rather than the material resources. Terrorism is much cheaper for the attacker than the defender (an "asymmetrical" threat). And our society has fewer effective security defenses, though now we must.

America has long been at the vanguard of security innovations, with much success. There is no other population of 300 million that has had the degree of safety as does America, certainly with the open access we enjoy. And this has been true, in proportion, since the nation was established centuries ago, with the notable (and still unfolding) exception of the Civil War. We have the opportunity to repeat our successes in securing our physical security, in the information-oriented world that we have created, dominate, and are committed to living in.

The distinction between sabotage and terrorism is important, probably pivotal. Our consumption of information about bad events must account for the focus of terrorists on the information, and its vulnerability. I recommend reading War and Peace in the Global Village, by Marshall LcLuhan. And Beyond Fear is on my own "to read" list. The challenge of terrorism presents an opportunity to become stronger, freer, and to lead the rest of the world with our good example.

What is the point of this?

[flossie]

The first site doesn't look particularly offensive (despite the spelling), it just says "This site is being redesigned, so be patient Their is going to be a discussionboard and some other feedback posibilities".

Repugnant as the views expressed on the other sites may be, I really can't see the point in this. If being entered on to the list has any impact at all (except for driving lots of people to look at it and see what the fuss is all about), the site owners can easily relocate the content to a new domain. There are an infinitely many potential domain names for them to choose from.

I don't believe this is intended to perform any useful purpose other than to send a message to someone. Perhaps the White House will point to this next time they are accused of favouring the Israeli government over the plight of the Palestinians. Alternatively, perhaps it is just a testing of the waters, if they get away with this one, they may feel emboldened to start tackling other organisations.

Slash-Qaeda

[sendai-X]

I really think this is just a cover move by the government to deflect attention from the real target.... Slashdot. Thats right. You heard it here first. Today Kahane. Tomorrow us.

Re:Slash-Qaeda

[im a fucking coward]

Wow, you must be RIGHT!

I declare un-American activities on Rumsfeld! (Do it to them before they do it on you my man.)

Slash-Qaeda: Where the forums have more jihad.

Slash-Thermo-Nuclear-Strike-Force: Where the glass glows greener.

What do you mean by tapped?

[MyNameIsFred]

...potentially give the Feds the authority to tap the entire Internet...

In this particular instance, we are talking about a publically available website. Something that any member of the general public can see. Whether we are talking about a website or someone exercising their dog in a public park, the government can observe any activities that the general public can view. They can read the website, or watch you exercise your dog in the park, no special considerations required.

Or are you concerned about something besides tapping?

Websites don't directly kill, Guns and People do.

[Anonymous Coward]

> When has an individual ever directly killed
> anyone? It is the bullet that's fired by the gun
> actuated by the finger connected to the hand
> dangling from the arm that carries out the action
>, fuckwad.

There is a key difference. When you pull the trigger, you set in place a series of events that are irreversible. If it hits it's target in a place that will kill someone, you are the direct cause.

When you post something on a website, people (may or may not) read it. They may or may not be inspired or agitated to do something. If they decide to do something about it they can either *CHOOSE* to do something constructive or destructive. If they choose to do something destructive, they may choose to destroy property or harm people. If they choose to harm people they may choose to do something mild (e.g. drop itching powder on their "enemies") or do something more serious.

There's a lot of choice with websites. Websites are like books. They provide information. What you do with that information is completely up to you.
Just because you read a banned book like "Fahrenheit 451" doesn't mean that you are automatically and inevitably a criminal.

Re:America died

[JayBlalock]

So to you I would say, yes, we need to wake up, and so does 94% of the world that hates us,

Uhhhh... HUH? From where, exactly, did you produce this number? And why do you fail to make distinctions between "hates the United States" and "is unhappy over how the US has behaved lately?" Most world governments recognize our system as being turbulent - I suspect many of them are now just waiting for the next government in '04 in hopes it behaves more nicely. And the average citizen of the world doesn't really CARE about us because either A)they're too wrapped up in their own problems, or B)we aren't dropping bombs anywhere too close to them.

I get really, really annoyed at folks who spout "this or that country hates America!" just because that country doesn't approve of what we're doing at the moment. We don't have a monopoly on moral righteousness, ya know.

Re:Chill out

[JayBlalock]

Actually, this is a more interesting question than the original poster probably realizes... Remember, since the 70s, money IS speech. That's how coporations can get away with bribing politicians - SCOTUS ruled (very stupidly IMHO, but that's another issue) that giving money to people represents a form of speech, and is thus afforded First Amendment protects. So, at the moment at least, legally if the government says, "you cannot give money to group X" they *ARE* breeching the First Amendment.

Just from a legal standpoint, it would be highly interesting to see that stance argued. It would be very, VERY difficult to create a ruling that preserves the idea of money-as-speech while still making donating money to terrorists illegal. Not, at least, without being fascistly arbitrary about it. (IE, you're allowed to give money (talk about?) only those groups we approve of.)

Of course, I'd be perfectly happy if such a case got rid of the whole silly notion of money being speech. This situation, more than anything, aptly illustrates why that is a BAD idea.

list of websites

[IAR80]

Where is the list of terrorist websites? Because I want to browse them all!!

Re:America died

[LNX Flocki]

He was referring to this thread

pissing in the wind

[geoff lane]

wouldn't it be a better idea to actually go out and _catch_ some terrorists instead of pissing away time and money chasing easy and irrelevant targets?

Re:pissing in the wind

[im a fucking coward]

No, you're missing the point. Chasing ephemeral targets and crushing civil liberties are the new Repulican agenda. Apparently they were just sorta kidding around before, but now they're in high gear. Get ready to laugh your ass off if your a Democrat.

Military protocol forbids ordinary citizens and average government personnel from actually 'doing anything'. Unless there's an unlikely event like a plane getting hijacked by terrorists, in which case the aforementioned can apparently try to 'do something', but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Re:pissing in the wind

[swordgeek]

Hmm.

Bush jr.
Rumsfeld
Cheney
Ashcroft

And the rest of the administration involved with or supported by the Project for a New American Century.

Yeah, that's a good list to start with.

Re:America died

[JayBlalock]

Oh, whoops. Well, then, just pretend I wrote that in response to whatever A.C. nimrod is claiming 94% :-)

Sorry...

Re:America died

[LNX Flocki]

While I agree that europe isn't as liberty minded than the US once was, I think it's the closest you can get right now on this planet. Apart from exceptions like canada and the like.

What is considered support?

[m_evanchik]

I'm looking at kahanetzadak.com, to use as an example.

A lot of these sites have banner ads. One prevalent "sponsor" (their word) is some site called affordablehealthcare.com. So would I be supporting terrorism by buying medical supplies from them.

On the links page, the articles of people like Alan Keyes, Rush Limbaugh, Senator James Inhofe, and George Will are linked to. Does this make them sponsors of state terrorism.

Heck, Circuit City has a link on their pages. Are they now supporters of terrorism?

Interestingly, cafepress apparently has pulled their affiliation with these people.

This isn't to say that these websites aren't podiums for some very nasty people, but it seems that the websites themselves are protected forums of expression. Even buying the trinkets or books sold directly seems to be aimed at deseminating ideas.

Is slashdot.org complicit and criminally liable for linking to the story. Am I criminally liable for even reading the sites?

Only heinous actions, not ideas, should be punishable. This action by the state department is edging awfully close to censorship and thought control.

I completely agree [ot]

[pr0ntab]

He's good at playing the "karma game"

Why can't those who don't want to really contribute just go back to crapflooding? It's more entertaining.

Re:Tap How??

[Nom du Keyboard]

give the Feds the authority to tap the entire Internet.

Tap the Internet how? It's not like there's a single wire anywhere along the way to easily connect into. Short of tapping at the receiving end where all the packets converge again at the destination web-site, you'll need to do that for every single site and then trace back every IP address -- including those using anonymous proxies.

Possible? Yes.

Expensive? Very yes.

Worth the effort? Ask the RIAA!

Re: Adust for Inflation

[Nom du Keyboard]

Every Jew a .22...wimpy firepower

Well they can either adjust for inflation, or travel in pairs.

Every Jew a .44 -- Make My Day!

Re:America died

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we'll just add a little context left out by our friend.

...anyone surprised by the speech must not have read Bob Woodward's Bush at War , in which he quoted Bush as saying (OK, in context of Cabinet meetings, but still): "I'm the commander. See, I don't have to explain why I say things . . . Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation.

source

So, the President's cabinet is responsible to the President, not the other way around. This is apparently either a revelation or signs of a conspiracy?

What about the next quote, from December 2000, just after the end of the bitterly contested 2000 election which ended with 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices finding that the procedures in Florida were unconstitutional and 5 of 9 finding that the procedures couldn't be remedied in the time legally allotted?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: President-elect Bush and the four congressional leaders met for two hours.

PRESIDENT-ELECT GEORGE W. BUSH: I told all four that I felt like this election happened for a reason; that it pointed out-- the Delay in the outcome should make it clear to all of us-- that we can come together to heal whatever wounds may exist, whatever residuals there may be. And I really look forward to the opportunity. I hope they've got my sense of optimism about the possible, and enthusiasm about the job. I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's okay. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier... ( Chuckles ) ( laughter ) ...just so long as I'm the dictator. ( Laughter )

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Afterwards, all four congressional leaders said they believed that today's meeting was a good start.

source

So, joking comments about the sometimes difficult process of democracy are signs of a conspiracy?

And, lets add a few more quotes from Frank:

Politics is a bunch of show and blow for people who don't understand.

The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre.

[We] like to talk about (or be told about) democracy but, when put to the test, usually find it to be an inconvenience. We have opted instead for an authoritarian system disguised as a democracy. We pay through the nose for an enormous joke-of-a-government, let it push us around, and then wonder how all those assholes got in there.

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry.

source

Apparently Frank said these things during Jimmy Carter's Presidency. I wonder if he really believed that there was no difference between Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Regan? I wonder if he would assert that a Dean administration would be no different from the Bush administration? Maybe Frank is just a nut. A talented musician, but still a nut.

I wonder, what is the mental state of the poster of the parent post? Bush hater? Nut? Conspiracy buff? Or just a member of the "looney left?" Bush may not be be everybody's cup of tea, but he is far from being a real, honest to badness fascist.

One Domino at a Time

[Nom du Keyboard]

First there have been attempts to ban Casino web-sites.

There were attempts to ban VoIP (as if you can separate one type of data from another).

Now political speech sites (have we become France verses Yahoo Auctions?)

At the same time our government is setting up anonymous proxy servers to help Iranians visit political dissent sites.

Who is being helped and who is being hurt?

Who has freedom?

MOD PARENT UP, GRANDPARENT DOWN

[Jameth]

The most level-headed thing I've seen on Slashdot in a while. Genuinely something intelligent. Thank you. I wish I could Mod you up.

Of course, you're replying to a '+4 interesting' which is horrible tripe. It's a damn shame.

Re:Tap How??

[AmigaAvenger]

luckily the internet isn't much of a web design like envisioned... there are only a couple of major backbones that would need to be tapped to capture the vast majority of traffic.

SomethingAwful.com

[AntiOrganic]

Can't wait for them to get listed for their grenade logo.

Re:OFFTOPIC!!!!!!!! MUST MOD DOWN

[GrimReality]

But it's slashdot, so any posts that agree to the party line gets modded way up.

I don't know if that is so. Slashdot, as far as I have seen, is either party-neutral or at the most slightly pro-right.

Although, some moderations indicate otherwise. But, you must realize that the people who moderate are randomly picked and there is no sure way of knowing what party-affiliations they are.

My point is that accusing Slashdot of following party lines is probably not very accurate.

By the way, another way to dilute a view (which could have better effect than reducing visibility) would be to inappropriately mod it up, say as 'Funny' ;-). You see how it could twist the meaning of the post.

Thanks,
GrimReality
2003-10-11 19:45:29 UTC (2003-10-11 15:45:29 EDT)

Stop Contributing To The A-I Conflict, By Not...

[istartedi]

...reporting on it. All over the worl there are tribal people killing eachother, and none of the conflicts get as much attention as the Arab-Israeli conflict. Neither Israel nor Palestine are of strategic importance to the West or to the Arab worlds.

By mutual agreement both the Western and Arab press should just stop reporting on it, and stop giving money to the respective sides.

Think of the benefits--unrest in the region would no longer affect our markets. Foreign policy resources could be devoted to solving other issues.

As for the people that inhabit the region, once they realize they aren't that important, they would have to lear how to work together and establish a true secular democracy with respect for the rights of all.

Additionally, the temple mount could be comdemned with the cooperation of religious leaders from both sides. Nobody would be allowed to set foot on it. Why, that would make it even more sacred, wouldn't it?

Then, land could be set aside for a new temple and a new mosque to replace the old run-down ones that are there now. Since the Dome of the Rock is still in pretty good shape though, they should probably be allowed to move it.

Then the people who live there would all have to get real jobs.

As a person of Jewish ancestry I understand the feelings that swirl around the region, but frankly as an American and a convert to Christianity I see nothing but folly there. The "Holy Land" has become a joke. Maybe this is what Revelation is about--fires, brimstone, etc. Perhaps God will destroy that land with some kind of natural disaster... let's say a fault opens up and a huge volcano erupts, covering the entire region with ash like Pompei.

That would be the best thing that could happen

Really.

I'm just sick and tired of hearing about it.

When these people are old and grey, and look back on their lives consumed with revenge over some 2000 year family fued (Jews and Arabs are brothers!) what will they think they have accomplished with their lives?

Any blue collar worker in the US who payed off his mortgage and raised a family has accomplished far more than the most respected leader from either camp.

end, rant.

A call for moderation (sorry about the pun)

[TheSHAD0W]

Some people want the parent of this post modded down; I want it to stay modded UP. But there's a prior sibling that ALSO needs to be modded up. It's important for the context of these quotes to be noted, but the original message also needs to be aired.

Re:Chill out

[anthony_dipierro]

Remember, since the 70s, money IS speech. That's how coporations can get away with bribing politicians - SCOTUS ruled (very stupidly IMHO, but that's another issue) that giving money to people represents a form of speech, and is thus afforded First Amendment protects.

You completely misrepresent the Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court ruled that speech is speech.

For instance, the ACLU recently aired radio advertisements in Alaska, New Hampshire, Texas, Utah and Vermont in which they asked listeners to call their senators and urge them to stop "sneak and peek" searches under the PATRIOT Act....

The advertisements did not take any position for or against the lawmakers whose names were mentioned. Yet, under the new campaign finance law, those ads would be illegal if they were broadcast within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, the ACLU noted in legal papers.

I'd suggest you read Buckley v. Valeo before criticising it. It seems like you took a semi-accurate summary (money is speech) without looking at the details of the overturned act. Here's a direct quote: "Some forms of communication made possible by the giving and spending of money involve speech alone, some involve conduct primarily, and some involve a combination of the two." Clearly the court is not saying that money is speech.

How to stop publicity to net-based terrorists.

[Parallex]

Step 1 : Write an article for CNN, providing URL details then /. it...
Step 2 : Hang your head in shame!

Re:How DARE they stifle free speech!!!

[WildBeast]

I'm okay with anti-abortion websites talking about there views but I'm not okay if they list the doctor's home address and tell people to go kill them. And from what I've seen from those websites (haven't seen much yet) they generally don't do that.

So when will the feds go after Verisgn?

[whoever57]

Since one of the site has a ".com" address, does this means that Verisign is providing "support"?

Re:Tap How??

[Nom du Keyboard]

luckily the internet isn't much of a web design like envisioned

And...this...is...lucky...exactly...how...?

Re:America died

[localman]

focused that energy on hating thier own oppressive puppet governments that hold hands with the "US Fascist Regieme" the world might be a better place to live.

Nice idea, but the current US administration has made it clear that not holding hands is an invitation for attack. Who's next?

Cheers (from the US)

Slashdot ?

[Animaether]

You are a long time user to Slashdot.
You read it regualarly.
You post to it regularly.
At Slashdot, you can read/learn about :

- Home-made guns, bombs, chemical and electrical experiments riddled with "Don't do this at home kids!" exclamations.

- Numerous bashings of U.S. government policy and the president, George W. Bush.

- Numerous bashings of the U.S.' largests corporations with powerful lobbies (Microsoft?)

- The latest in hacking and cracking news, more often than not defying and slamming such laws as the DMCA (like it or not, it's a law - get it voted out, but until then you're bound by it), including such delectable stories as hacking voting machines.

Not to mention that you made such posts as :
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=78967&cid=6 992 273 - Joking about weed use is a dangerous thing around the proper authorities, much like jokingly saying you have a gun in your carry-on luggage at an airport.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=64110&cid=59 73 667 - In which you slam the war on Iraq.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=62501&cid=58 40 785 - In which you admit to illegaly sharing (presumably U.S.) TV-Shows with the rationale of "I use kazaa for trading of tv shows because as i am not in the us i can't enjoy the pleasures of PVRs and building my own for a few shows is not worth it."

All that.. and you worry about, a likely innocent and isolated, sightseeing at the sites mentioned ?

I think you need to re-adjust your tinfoil hat. Under that paranoia, the U.S. Government would have plenty of reason to deny you entry as it is.

(In case you counter that they could be monitoring access to those 4 sites - who's to say they're not monitoring access to Slashdot?)

Re:Slashdot ?

[Tensor]

Yes BUT those are not red flagged as "terrorist" sites while slashdot is not.

Re:Slashdot ?

[Tensor]

OOPS, now why didn't I push preview ? well, you know what i meant

In other news...

[Izago909]

The US government has begun freely advertising anti-American and terrorist websites to a massive audience who probably would have otherwise not heard of them.

Blocking access...

[jdog1016]

Maybe this would be a good way for Verisign to continue using their search service.

Irrelevant...

[LFS.Morpheus]

Since we're all suspected terrorists anyway.

(Also this is a very good follow-up read if you're interested. This has also been posted on /. before (link). And there's also more links.)

I, for one, welcome our new Ashcroft overlords.

We're All Terrorists Now

[yintercept]

The internet is an interesting challenge because everything is linked together. Yahoo is now a terrorist organization because they mention the names of web sites deemed terrorists (I noticed that they did not have actual links in an anchor tags, but it does list an executable URL.).

Slashdot intentionally linked to a news acticle at Yahoo...making /. a terrorist organization. I appear to have just responded to the /. article making me a terrorist.

What a way to ruin a Saturday. I think I will go and fill up my tank with gas...something I am sure won't ever put money in terrorists hands, because this whole free speech thang doesn't work.

Re:We're All Terrorists Now

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I think I will go and fill up my tank with gas...something I am sure won't ever put money in terrorists hands,

That depends on your perspective, of course. The oil industry in Iraq is now essentially controlled by US interests, appointed by a US administration with numerous ties to the oil industry. That's the same administration that just forcibly overthrew a foreign government in order to wrest control of those resources from it. (Oh, no, sorry, it was to prevent terrorist activity sheltered by a nation with WMDs that could be used in 45mins. Oh, no, wait, it was because the regime was evil and Iraq was better off without them. Oh, no, wait... When is it election year again?)

You gotta love the way the US (and UK) governments use "countering terrorism" as a blanket justification for committing acts that would certainly be interpreted as illegal and/or terrorist if committed against them. On the bright side, representative government may finally be about to re-assert itself after several years of losing out to greater financial interests in both countries: I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd wager a hell of a lot of money that neither Bush nor Blair will get another term in office.

Of course, I'm probably a terrorist for suggesting that we should (entirely legally and within the democratic framework of our countries) remove the incumbent leaders from power by <shock> voting against them because we don't agree with their actions. I'll send you a postcard from Gitmo.

Re:We're All Terrorists Now

[b-baggins]

Your tinfoil hat is coming loose. If Bush had wanted to help his oil cronies, he could have just lifted the sanctions. Quicker, easier and more profitable for the oil companies.

--
Thinking. Try it, you may like it.

Re:We're All Terrorists Now

[zebs]

I'd wager a hell of a lot of money that neither Bush nor Blair will get another term in office.

Yeah right, Blair is almost guaranteed another term. The other options are: Ian Duncan Smith, or IDS - In Deep Shit (Conservative) who is the "self styled quiet man of politics" (read: boring and dull), and Charles Kennedy (Lib Dems) who hasn't got a hope (although he seems like a nice guy).

It'd take a whole load of apathy to remove Blair.

Re:We're All Terrorists Now

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It'd take a whole load of apathy to remove Blair.

You're assuming that the party leaders remain as they are. The most likely way Blair won't make another term, IMHO, is that Gordon Brown will make a serious leadership challenge.

The next most likely option is that IDS will be replaced as Conservative leader in the near future, after a successor with a fighting chance of winning an election steps forward.

Never write off any electoral result in British politics as a done deal until the votes are counted. Labour just lost one of their safest seats to a Lib Dem, mostly (according to exit polls) because Tony Blair took us to war and enough people cared to vote against the party. Labour maintained a huge parliamentary advantage at the last general election because of the first past the post system, but that hid a massive drop in their majority in many "safe" seats; a similar drop next time would lose them many of those seats. So remember, boys and girls: do your homework, go out and vote.

Re:We're All Terrorists Now

[zebs]

The next most likely option is that IDS will be replaced as Conservative leader in the near future, after a successor with a fighting chance of winning an election steps forward.

Thats almost certain. Who to replace him though? Euro friendly Ken Clark? Not a chance. Micheal "face like slapped ham" Portillo, Oliver "I'd rather beg on the streets than send my kids to the local comprehensive" Letwin?

Labour just lost one of their safest seats to a Lib Dem, mostly (according to exit polls) because Tony Blair took us to war and enough people cared to vote against the party

Next election is atleast 2 years away (3 atmost) in which time feelings about the war will have settled and many people will have forgotten. I beleive though that Labour will win, but with a significantly reduced majority - mostly because the Torys havn't a chance of repairing their situation within that time.
Blair won't last out the third term however.

Re:We're All Terrorists Now

[PurpleFloyd]

Take a look at the Project for a New American Century, a neocon organisation that is dedicated to bringing American "leadership" to the world and making sure that big buisiness can't be stopped by some damn upstart who happens to be better than them.

Their leadership has in the past stated that Saudi Arabia is far too volatile to be a major oil source for America and we should look for or "install" alternative leadership in the area (cite: the policy paper Rebuilding America's Defenses [PDF]). Who fits that bill? Hmm, a despot who we can tie via vauge rumors to Sept. 11, who is hated by a good deal of the world and is militarialy fairly weak? Saddam, your number's up!

Of course, Sept. 11 itself was something of a wet dream for these boys: check out page 51 (page 63 of the PDF), which states that the transformation of America from its current state into a superpower willing to smash anyone in the way of her mighty Corporations will be gradual, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." A reason for massive military spending? Check! A way to tie massive military buildups to patriotism? Check! A way to declare liberals dirty traitorous bastards! Check and mate!

Re:We're All Terrorists Now

[1u3hr]

Yahoo is now a terrorist organization because they mention the names of web sites deemed terrorists (I noticed that they did not have actual links in an anchor tags, but it does list an executable URL.).

Nowhere in the Yahoo article did it say that reading or linking to the sites was illegal. The only prohibition mentioned was donating money to them. Yahoo was exercising preemptive self-censorship.

Patriot Act and terrorism

[manon]

Next thing you know, Michael Moore's website will be on that list.
Some of you may worry abot the freedom of speech on the internet, I think we should worry in a larger scale.
I'm lucky I'm not a US citizen: I don't want my site to be on that list because I question a lot of international politics on it.
That Partriot Act is designed to end the freedom of speech, wether on the internet or in real life (ok, for some of us, including myself, the internet is real life).
Just wonder if we can do anything about it?

Perhaps Even Slashdot Readers...

[reallocate]

...can be bothered to read the ref'd article and learn that placing these sites on the terrorist list -- the organizations that sponsor the sites have been on the list for some time -- prohibits fundings or supporting the sites. not reading them.

If you're paranoid about the USG perhaps knowing about your visits to the site, bear in mind that the site's sponsors have probably been tracking you all along.

Re:Perhaps Even Slashdot Readers...

[swordgeek]

Damn straight!

I have been known to go on long pointed rants against the horrors of the current US administration and their criminal attitudes towards...well, most things. However, even i can't find fault with this, having read the article. Boil it down to its essence, and all they're saying is that terrorist organisations can't use the web as a loophole to do the things that they already can't do other ways. (collect funds, etc.) Big deal.

How the US defines a terrorist organisation may be up for discussion, as might their attempts at quashing freedom of speech; but those issues have nothing to do with this latest policy.

Names Are Not Websites

[radtea]

As near as I can figure, this has nothing to do with websites and everything to do with website names. Websites are collections of information, much like books.

The articles says that the U.S. government has put website names on the list of aliases for terrorist organizations, but this does not mean the websites are in any sense terrorist organizations, any more than a book can be a terrorist organization.

For example, it would make no sense at all for the government to say: "We have placed the following books on our list of terrorist organizations: MEIN KAMPF, THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION, THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY and THE FARMER's ALMANAC."

I use the OED and THE FARMER'S ALMANAC as examples because they are books that are also ongoing projects by identifiable organizations. But the books are not the organizations--they are merely a name under which the organization may be identified.

This is an important distinction because of course only someone inexcusably ignorant of history would want the goverment censoring websites. Noting that website (or book) names may be used as aliases for terrorist organizations, however, is quite a different kettle of herring.

--Tom

Your Money Can Be Used To Kill

[reallocate]

A website can't kill people, but these guys can, and have.

How do you know that your support for the site really does go to paying for bandwidth?

How do you know if your support for one of these sites doesn't free up funds to allow them to murder another American or another Palestinian?

Check these groups out, nd then think before you post.

Banned site links

[lamber45]

For some reason Yahoo doesn't make links to sites they mention in their stories, so I'll fix that part for them. The second paragraph should read:

A list published in the Federal Register includes newkach.org, kahane.org, kahane.net, kahanetzadak.com as aliases for the Jewish group Kahane Chai or Kach, which is suspected of organizing attacks on Palestinians...

If it's illegal to give money to these sites, is slashdotting them a patriotic act?

Re:Stop Contributing To The A-I Conflict, By Not..

[bj8rn]

By mutual agreement both the Western and Arab press should just stop reporting on it, and stop giving money to the respective sides.

Ignoring something will not make it go away, no matter how you may wish it be so. You can't stop a conflict by not reporting on it anymore.

Re:Israel Calls Them Terrorists, Too

[reallocate]

The group that sponsors this site has been on the list for years and are essentially an American group. The Israelis consider them terrorists, too.

Israel Outlawed Them in 1994

[reallocate]

Kach and all the other Kahane groups have been on the list for years. The Israelis consider them terrorists, too. They outlawed them in 1994. In 1994, a Brooklyn-born Kach supporter armed with a machine gun massacred 29 people in a mosque in the city of Hebron in the West Bank.

I'd guess you didn't know that.

Re:Israel Outlawed Them in 1994

[knobmaker]

I'd heard that allegation. I hadn't heard that Kach had been convicted, in any court, of conspiracy in that case. Is this your claim?

Re:Israel Outlawed Them in 1994

[reallocate]

Didn't say anything about a conspiracy or a conviction. Just said that the guy who killed 29 people was a sympathizer.

Re:Israel Outlawed Them in 1994

[iannn]

of course, he had to be from the us. wow we're losers.

The List

[stry_cat]

I actually found the list from the Federal Register. He link I used as at http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate. cgi?WAISdocID=91005011465+2+0+0&WAISaction=retriev e Here is the releveant text.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4511]

Amendment of Certain Designations Pursuant to Section 1(a)(ii)(A) of Executive Order 12947

Acting under the authority of section 1(a)(ii)(A) of Executive Order 12947 of January 23, 1995, as amended by Executive Order 13099 of August 20, 1998, and in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, I hereby determine that the organizations listed below use or have used as aliases the additional names indicated below. I hereby amend the designations of these organizations to add the following names as aliases:

Kahane Chai (designated on January 23, 1995)
Also known as Kach
Also known as Kahane Lives

[[Page 58739]]
Also known as the Kfar Tapuah Fund
Also known as The Judean Voice
Also known as The Judean Legion
Also known as The Way of the Torah
Also known as The Yeshiva of the Jewish Idea
Also known as the Repression of Traitors
Also known as Dikuy Bogdim
Also known as DOV
Also known as the State of Judea
Also known as the Committee for the Safety of the Roads
Also known as the Sword of David
Also known as Judea Police
Also known as Forefront of the Idea
Also known as The Qomemiyut Movement
Also known as KOACH
Also known as New Kach Movement
Also known as newkach.org
Also known as Kahane
Also known as Yeshivat HaRav Meir
Also known as the International Kahane Movement
Also known as Kahane.org
Also known as Kahane.net
Also known as Kahanetzadak.com
Also known as Kahane Tzadak
Also known as the Hatikva Jewish Identity Center
Also known as the Rabbi Meir David Kahane Memorial Fund
Also known as Friends of the Jewish Idea Yeshiva
Also known as Judean Congress
Also known as Jewish Legion
Also known as The Voice of Judea
Also known as No'ar Meir
Also known as Meir's Youth
Also known as American Friends of Yeshivat Rav Meir
Also known as American Friends of the United Yeshiva Movement
Also known as The Committee Against Racism and Discrimination (CARD)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (designated on January 23, 1995)
Also known as the Red Eagles
Also known as the Red Eagle Group
Also known as the Red Eagle Gang
Also known as the Halhul Gang
Also known as the Halhul Squad
Also known as Palestinian Popular Resistance Forces
Also known as PPRF
Also known as Martyr Abu-Ali Mustafa Battalion Islamic Army (designated on August 20, 1998)
Also known as al Qaeda
Also known as ``the Base''
Also known as the Usama Bin Laden Network
Also known as the Usama Bin Laden Organization
Also known as Egyptian Islamic Jihad
Also known as al-Jihad
Also known as the Jihad Group
Also known as Egyptian al-Jihad
Also known as New Jihad

I determine that no prior notice need be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

Dated: October 7, 2003.
Colin L. Powell,
Secretary of State, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 03-25888 Filed 10-9-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-10-P The really scary part is that next to last paragraph saying it doesn't matter if you have a constutional right or not, they are still going to detain you.

Land of the free... my ass....

[DigitalSpyder]

So if I decide to start my own website, say a discussion forum, and someone posts links to their own H/P/A/V or warez website or even just posts how to build a bomb, whats to stop the feds from declaring my site as a "terrorist" organisation or "supporting terrorism activities" and then locking my bank account, sending me to jail, no access to a lawyer and then sentencing me to death?

Land of the free, my f*cking ass... this country is only free until you say something that pisses the Powers That Be off. So much for the First Ammendment. That Zappa quote hit the nail on the head. Freedom and democracy is a total illusion in the US and it's only a matter of time before someone really does lift the veil from the eyes of the people....

Re:How DARE they stifle free speech!!!

[Trillian_1138]

finkploud said, "I notice quite a lot of people up in arms over the free speech aspects of this. So I have to assume you guys are all ok with anti-abortion internet websites listing doctor's home address and encouraging people to kill them right?"

I believe the analogy others have used is "Your right to swing your arm ends the exact place my nose begins." This has been applied to free speech of telemarketers ("Your right to free speech ends when I don't want to listen") but could also apply here.

You are no longer gauranteed free speech when your speech endangers my safety or privacy.

And a quick note, to cut off possible counter-arguments. Sites or people that promote racist views or, as in the case of anti-abortion sites, may lead to violence are a tricky issue. But even if I disagree with what they say and they seem likely to promote violence, if they're not actually pushing violence it's hard to shut them down without violating the their freedom of speech. This really needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. It's possible to have an anti-abortion site without it promoting violence.

Personally, having glanced at these websites, they may or may not prmote violence, but I would say they are NOT extreme enough to classify just viewing them as somehow supporting terorism...

-Trillian

Re:America died

[Nept]

You fucking idiot. If you're going to quote someone, keep the quotes in context. The context of GWB's quotes are entirely different than what you make them out to be.

Re:America died

[Doodleman3]

As an American, while I do not disagree with your assertion that what America used to be (land of the free, liberty, limited government) is no more, I would like to know which countries DO respect the rights Americans used to enjoy? Europe is hardly a libertarian dream-world, the mid east certainly is not, nor Asia, Africa, Latin America, pretty much all out. This is a global trend, its simply more noticable in the US because we've fallen so far. So to you I would say, yes, we need to wake up, and so does 94% of the world that hates us, maybe if they focused that energy on hating thier own oppressive puppet governments that hold hands with the "US Fascist Regieme" the world might be a better place to live.

You've never been to Canada before, have you.

Ignorance is a sin.

[TheLoneCabbage]

First:
Isn't it amazing how the feaky freakies come out of the wood work every time someone mentions Israel? "Israel cures cancer with Linux", first post is "Israel Opressors of the world". Israelies a people dealing with a BAD situation that's only getting worse. In the mean time their contributions to the world are exceeded by few other nations, much their seinior and often their criticts.

Do not go launching into a diatribe about the evils of Israel and the "Ocupation" nor the nature of Kach without understanding the history and politics of the region.

Kach is not a violent movement. Not by Middle eastern standerds. If you were to compare them to say the GOP, yeah Kach is a violent organizaiton but the GOP is not dealing with daily suicide bombings, stonings, lynchings, shootings, and nuclear threats (anymore).

The closest American counterpart would be the Black Panthers. (similar logos in fact) Kach felt, as did the BP, that relations between the two groups had reached a point of no return, and that the most humane thing for both sides was seperation.

When the groups leader, Rabbi Meir Kahane ran for office in Israel, he recieved more votes than any previous first run, first party, canidate ever. And polls indicated that most Israelies didn't vote for him because they thought it may waste their vote (Israelies VOTE!), and that the next election would see Kach as the 3rd or 4rth largest party in Israel, virtualy over night. Funniest factoid of all, is that Kach was the most popular party amongst Arab Israeli voters, who explained that Rabbi Kahane treated them with respect; even though Arab Israelies already had thier own Arab political parties.

Kach's political platform was not single issue. They endorsed above all religion as a vital part of the state, development of a capitalistic economy (rather than socialism), the keeping of all teritories, and the transfer of Non-Israeli populations (read "Palistinians") out of Israel WITH MONETARY COMPENSATION!

The dominant party at the time was Avoda (Labor), and the only thing that frightened them more than the plat form of Kach (which was oppisite theirs completly), was that Israelis were so widley supportive of it. (the reasons for this are very complex and beyond the scope of this writing, but you should be aware that this is not an issue to take lighly and make assumptions about)

With the assisination of Rabbi Kahane, Labor had Kache outlawd for it's political platform (NOT VIOLENCE) of population transfer; by passing a remarkably unpopular law banning the suggestion of it in public forum.

Because of Kach's ultra-rightwing platform some of the most unsavories were drawn to it. And whithout the strong leadership of R. Kahane the group lost it's center and became MORE violent. However the actions of Kache have never amounted to more than crude thugery. In the entire history of the organization (aprox 30 years) only two violent acts of any signifigance have taken place. Neither was perpatrated by rank and file members of the organizaion, and both acted entirely alone.

Web Site can Assist Terrorism: China's News Agency

[reporter]

The idea of identifying terrorist web sites is excellent as long as the American government is consistent in its policies. The list of terrorist groups should also include the web sites for the following organization.

1. China People's Daily

The "China People's Daily" is run by the Beijing government and is the mouthpiece of the Chinese government. It has conducted a number of terrorist activities in Tibet. You can find some descriptions at Tibet Online and Amnesty International.

Further, operatives of the "China People's Daily" were stationed at the Chinese embassy in Serbia in 1999 when the embassed was hit by American bombs. The majority of people in China (which includes Taiwan Province and Hong Kong) supported the Serbian military aggression against the Kosovars. The Serbians executed thousands of men, women, and children in Kosovar in an attempt to remove them from Kosovo: the Serbia military raped the women and slit the throats of the children. The Americans sent military forces to Serbia in an attempt to stop the genocide. At the time, Chinese operatives of the "China People's Daily" operated secretly from the relative safety of the embassy and relayed communications to the Serbian army and helped the Serbians to defeat American electronic warfare. (reference: "NATO hit embassy on purpose")

The Serbian aggression against the Kosovars was strongly supported by the Chinese and is the first major case of genocide after the genocide of the Cambodians by Pol Pot. The Chinese also supported Pol Pot.

... from the desk of the reporter

Banner Ads?

[John_Booty]

Under U.S. law, it would be illegal to provide money or other material support to the designated Web sites, the people who run them could be denied U.S. visas and U.S. banks must block their funds. The State Department said it was yet clear how this would work in practice.

What if I were visit their website, and discover they have pay-per-impression banner ads? Since I just put 0.00001 cents or whatever into their pocket, would the Justice Department be able to seize my belongings in the name of "freedom"? :P

My terrorist act of the day:

[X86Daddy]

And the four sites are:

• http://newkach.org/
  
• http://kahane.org/
  
• http://kahane.net/ (seems hosed)
  
• http://kahanetzadak.com/
  

Frankly, I think this is perfectly acceptible action at this time, and I hope that the US does not try to go further and block the sites. When you can read vile words from the mouths of fools, you're often alienated from them easier than if they were underground, secretive, suppressed, and romanticized .

Re:My terrorist act of the day:

[hlh_nospam]

I could not get to http://kahanetzadak.com/; got an error 403:Forbidden. I did, however, manage to get to http://kahane.net/, where I found the following prose:

---- http://kahane.net/ -----

You are probably here because you recently read a story about how the Treasury Department added "kahane.net" to a list of terrorist organizations.

If you know anything about internet domain names (the addresses used to find things, like the address "kahane.net"), then you know that these things aren't permanent - if people don't pay their renewal fee for the domain name, then the name drops and becomes available for registration by anyone else.

So, what is the story with "kahane.net"?

Well, as you may know there are some Israeli extremists who admire the late nutcase, Rabbi Meir Kahane. Rabbi Kahane's goal in life was apparently to prove that terrorism is an equal opportunity occupation. A brief biography can be found at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Kahane.

If you run a search on Google for references to "kahane.net", you will see that prior to about two years ago, it looks as if the domain name "kahane.net" was being used by his nutcase supporters.

If you look at the current registration data for "kahane.net", you will notice a "created" date of April 27, 2002.

If you have a clue about internet domain names, then what happened should be immediately obvious to you, once you put those two observations together - The Kach idiots were using the domain name at some time prior to the current registration date. If you don't have a clue, then you have to be told explicitly that they didn't renew their domain name registration. So, the domain name dropped and was picked up by one of the many folks who like to pick up expired domain names.

This is the same thing that happened to taliban.com.

The REAL Kahane folks can be found at another website, but I would rather not send them the traffic.

I would, however, like to sell you a book about internet domain names. So if all of this domain name stuff sounds fascinating to you, then click on the link below:

---- end of http://kahane.net/ ----

No other mention of who now owns the url, or why, but it looks like some enterprising geek realized that the url was going to be slashdotted, and it was an excellent opportunity to post an Amazon affiliate link (BTW, the affiliate has the domain name "Taliban").

Damned. Wish I'd thought of that...

Re:My terrorist act of the day:

[WEFUNK]

This seems pretty silly. Kahane.net is registered by what appears to be pretty prestigious Philadelpia patent law firm, Dann, Dorfman, Herrell, and Skillman and the administrative and billing contact is one of their partners, John Berryhill. Some people might not like patents (or at least those of the software variety) but somehow I doubt these guys are radical terrorists. Based on the registration date below and the last available page on the wayback machine being before that date I'm guessing they probably bought it up to shut it down (unless the later pages were pulled from archive.org and Google's cache). Of course, at any rate, I assume it's illegal for US citizens to give this firm any business until this is cleared up.

" Registrar: MONIKER ONLINE SERVICES, INC.
Whois Server: whois.moniker.com
Referral URL: http://www.moniker.com
Name Server: NS3.MONIKER.COM
Name Server: NS4.MONIKER.COM
Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Updated Date: 11-oct-2003
Creation Date: 27-apr-2002
Expiration Date: 27-apr-2004 ...

Domain Name: KAHANE.NET

Registrant:
Dann, Dorfman, Herrell, and Skillman
1601 Market St.
Suite 2400
Philadelphia
PA
US
19103

Administrative Contact:
Berryhill, John (NIC-6305) jberryhill@ddhs.com
Dann, Dorfman, Herrell, and Skillman
1601 Market St.
Suite 2400
Philadelphia
PA, US
19103
Phone: 2155634100 Fax: 2155634044"

Limits of First

[beakburke]

Actually, advocating the overthrow of the govenment (overthrow being anything that does not comform to the law, eg. a coup rather than an election) is not protected by the 1st ammendment. There are limits, even to the first ammendment, the supreme court has ruled so on numerous occasions. It is meant to protect the legitimate discourse of ideas, even ones that are unpopular. What it does not do is protect someone who is not just speaking their mind, but is advocating/requesting that others engage in illegal activity. There are numerous laws that make such orders themselves illegal. (2nd degree murder is a simple example.

Religion the root of all evil??

[juglugs]

Aren't the majority of wars based on religion? Isn't that like saying "my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend"? I say - ban religions and the world will become a more peaceful place....(slightly tongue-in-cheek, of course, that's not going to happen...)

The Official Definition of Terrorism

[TPFH]

"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act of an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intedned (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to infuence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." (United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19 volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984])

Nothing New

[Anonymous Coward]

Two Jewish terrorists have been convicted in Tampa, Florida of planning bombing campaigns against Mosques as well as assassinations. The terrorist Irving Rubin committed suicide in prison awaiting trial to bomb Islamic targets in California. His jewish partner in these terrorist crimes is awaiting trial.
All this talk about Arab terrorists while we ignore zionist terrorist groups that have been with us since the 1930s.
Palestine might should like a horrible example but so far they have not done everything to Israelis that that Zionists did to the British. The zionists introduced terror bombing, hanging British hostages and even ethnic cleansing.
Facts are facts. Antisemitism is stupid. Antizionism is a moral imperative.

Tin foil hats and getting the facts

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If Bush had wanted to help his oil cronies, he could have just lifted the sanctions.

I don't think my tin foil hat is as loose as you think. Bremner, Bird and Fortune (three well-known political satirists in the UK) made two excellent programmes on the Iraq situation that, while entertaining and funny in a way, also did a thorough job of shattering the various illusions and excuses put up by the UK and US governments with that most primitive of weapons: facts. Several other investigate journalist types have apparently made similar reports in both countries, though I've not seen any others myself. At any rate, if you buy arguments like "Of course it wasn't for the money, it would have been way cheaper not to go to war" then you really need to look into apolitical sources and get some cold, hard facts.

In this particular case, BTW, it's the difference between US companies getting hold of Iraqi oil supplies at some helpful rate, and US companies all but running the Iraqi oil production business. Did I mention that the companies given contracts worth absurdly large sums of money to "rebuild" Iraq are pretty much entirely composed of those to whom the senior Bush administration officials have direct links? There is way, way more money in this than what they could have got out of lifting sanctions. <sarcasm> Of course, with the US in its current strong financial position and the aftermath of 911 settling down, no-one in the US government was worried about ways to boost the economy. </sarcasm>

I like your sig, BTW, but before "thinking" should come "getting facts to think about".

Re:Tin foil hats and getting the facts

[b-baggins]

Yep. The most evil thing that can happen in this world is that an oil company might get a good deal on oil supplies, and another company might get a good contract because they have ties to the President.

That's way, way more evil than a tyrannical dictator with a massive WMD program (read the report) who tried to assassinate a former U.S. president, thumbed his nose at the world community, and thought it was great fun to have prisoners eaten alive as punishment for criticizing him.

Oh, yeah. An oil contract is way, way worse than that. Thanks for putting it all in perspective for me.

--
Thinking. Try it, you may like it.

Re:Tin foil hats and getting the facts

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The most evil thing that can happen in this world is that an oil company might get a good deal on oil supplies, and another company might get a good contract because they have ties to the President.

You miss the point. All of the companies who are benefitting to the tune of billions of dollars from the "rebuilding" effort are major Bush administration supporters. Every single one of them. Surely you can see that the decision to go to war may not have been made for entirely ethical reasons faced with that sort of information?

That's way, way more evil than a tyrannical dictator...

Saddam was hardly the only tyrannical dictator in the world, removing him was not the reason we went to war, and indeed going to war purely on that basis would be illegal under both UK and US law. Saying "We removed an evil man" is great spin, but does not justify the actions of the US and UK leaders this year.

...with a massive WMD program (read the report)...

OK, firstly, you need to go and read the report, or at least the executive summary. (I'm assuming you're referring to the preliminary findings published a few days ago by the post-war inspection team.) While reading, please note that no weapons of mass destruction have been found and no manufacturing facilities have been identified. They did find a small amount of material hidden in one scientist's home that might indicate a programme of research, though. Not exactly what I'd call a "massive WMD program". Stop buying the government hype and do some damned reading, would you please? Or perhaps we should give the inspectors another six months before holding our governments accountable for their actions? Or maybe until after the next election?

...who tried to assassinate a former U.S. president, thumbed his nose at the world community, and thought it was great fun to have prisoners eaten alive as punishment for criticizing him.

That's obviously better than a country that tries to assassinate the Iraqi President, thumbs their nose at the world community and thinks it's great fun to keep hundreds of prisoners under uncertain conditions, without any legal representation or due process, based on at best a dubious legal technicality, in the aftermath of waging a war that has destroyed the infrastructure of a whole country most of whose citizens had no say in its behaviour, with the loss of hundreds of lives among its own armed forces and at a cost of billions that could have been spent on improving desperately poor situations at home.

Me?!?

[zebs]

I guess then that I'm a terrorist as I obviously have links to terrorist organisations?

Re:America died

[RobinH]

... I would like to know which countries DO respect the rights Americans used to enjoy?

The first country that springs to mind is Canada.

see it for your self here

[genevaroth]

this is the search page http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html I looked for "Kahane" fuck, there is about a million articals on this and not one fucking link to the site.

http://www.kahane.org/ runs on IIS 5.0....

[openmtl]

I thought that the US was where you may not support someones views but you supported their ability to say them. I guess while the US was fighting the British for independence then it was OK then to have subversive views of independence but its not right now. F*cking two faced if you ask me. a) Given that IIS is commercial software with a license from MS then indirectly MS has a commercial relationship and, b) it won't belong until its 0wn3d. They'll have to move to a free OS !

Re:America died

[Mjec]

So to you I would say, yes, we need to wake up, and so does 94% of the world that hates us, maybe if they focused that energy on hating thier own oppressive puppet governments that hold hands with the "US Fascist Regieme" the world might be a better place to live.

Two problems:

1. The US, as the most powerful nation, is setting this trend
2. Just because everyone else is doing it that doesn't make it ok

not another term?

[memnock]

I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd wager a hell of a lot of money that neither Bush nor Blair will get another term in office.

you're assuming that the election, and it's results, in the U.S. will be properly handled. no voting box inconsistencies. no recounts. no Secretary of State(FL)(now a congressperson) who is in charge of the election, and who is also in charge of the presidential candidate's state election campaign. no voters being improperly kicked off the role by a company that is paid millions for checking the roles and gets fatter contracts afterwards for doing its job wrong.

Re:America died

[caitsith01]

"If you're going to quote someone, keep the quotes in context."

Yeah! Don't, for example, take tiny exerpts from a report about the unlikely possibility that Iraq is buying uranium from an African country and use it as the basis for launching an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

COME ON, PATRIOTS!!!

You Americans are FUCKING UNBELIEVABLE. Just because he is the President DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO DEFEND BUSH.

Re:America died

[caitsith01]

Totalitarianism doesn't have to take the same form every time. It's like a computer virus - if a virus is highly destructive, it will tend to burn out because it incapacitates the systems that it infects, is easily detected (i.e. your compute stops working) and as such has trouble spreading. A more successful model is to make a virus that inflicts a small, or hard to detect, amount of damage. Such a virus can then worm its way through the whole Internet with ease. Likewise, a totalitarian regime that is openly violent and suppressive is more easily opposed than a regime that subtly but pervasively takes control of a society.

I put it to you that the curent US regime is the latter - essentially totalitarian, but paying extensive lip service to democracy as a cover. I mean, just look at the nexus between government and business - who has more power, one ordinary citizen or one large corporation?

Pathetic moderation

[caitsith01]

I can't believe the moderation in this thread by 'patriot' idiots seeking to enforce a pro-USA-at-all-costs agenda. Americans need to learn that they should never take the attitude that the President is exempt from criticism. Just because someone criticises Bush doesn't mean they are attacking the US, or the American way or life, or whatever else you would like to think they are attacking. In fact criticising Bush is itself quite a patriotic act, especially with you fools baying like a pack of blood hounds when you get the scent of a dissenter in your midst.

People with interesting views have been shouted down here and treated as irrelevant because those views are anti-Bush. Personally I think this is like torturing someone for saying that the Earth goes around the Sun and not the other way round, but hey...

Re:Pathetic moderation

[jonhuang]

Not really. I absolutely hate bush, but even I can see these quotes are out of context and deceptive. Seriously, read this reply. No idea what it's doing at only +2.

Re:Pathetic moderation

[caitsith01]

Sure, I agree posts on both sides should be higher if they have validity. There are numerous posts that are sitting at 0, however.

keeping freedom of the press

[Anonymous Coward]

and so we see the key to freedom of the press: But the law may not enable the United States to block access to the Web sites, if only for technical reasons. not that i'm advocating these web sites, because i'm not, but the only way we can be sure that freedom of the press won't be taken away is to make it technically or practically difficult or impossible for it to be taken away.

Advocating violence is not protected speech.

[ZWithaPGGB]

Just because it's on the web, doesn't make it any more protected than a pamphlet. If you advocate violence, you're not engaging in protected speech, you're committing a crime. End of story. Get a clue. Al Qaeda sites were already covered by this. We just finally got some partial balance in it. If someone called this group a source of "Hate Speech" I'm sure the average /.er, who is usually from the lunatic left, would be all for banning it. Zionists are at least as bad as Islamists.

Web site with abortion doctor name ?

[aepervius]

This is one example among any. As long as people DO hate, and as long as other will take the time to orgnaize among themselves their "hate" agenda, any form of communication can be used to organize killing too. Thus, yes Web site can be terrorist organisation.

Re:America died

[line.at.infinity]

Frank Zappa isn't saying there isn't any difference between Nixon, Ford, Carter, et. al, what he is saying is that their presidency is not the ideal democracy. For example, they are not direct democracy (IIRC, that's what it's called) where any citizen can propose a law, and everyone can vote on all laws. Ideal democracy is not US. It is not practical, either.

Re:Web Site can Assist Terrorism: China's News Age

[1u3hr]

The majority of people in China (which includes Taiwan Province and Hong Kong) supported the Serbian military aggression against the Kosovars

That's complete bullshit. For a start, the majority of Chinese (like Americans) couldn't tell you which continent the Kosovars lived on if you held a gun to their head. Total ignorance does not means support. (What the central government did is another thing entirely.)

Secondly, as a resident of Hong Kong I aver that those who DID know what the Serbs were doing were repulsed as much as anyone else. Though being on the other side of the world and lacking any army or vote, it makes no difference what we think in this or most other foreign issues. I do know some local charities have been active in supporting aid in the Balkans.

Actually the Constitution says it is.

[Quizo69]

The written purpose for Americans being allowed to have arms is so that they may rise up and unseat a tyrannical government. This includes unseating Bush by force if that were the will of the people.

The laws that make it a felony to even threaten to do this, should be illegal in themselves, as they counteract the legality of the right of the people to unseat their own government.

Quizo69

lets be honesat Israel is a European colony

[DABANSHEE]

The zionists colonised the place in total disregard of the wishes & interests of the vast majority of people that were actually living.

Remember there was no conflict between Palestine's (native shephardic) Jews & the rest of the population there. Then Zionists atarted immigrating en masse with thoughts of colonisation & displacement on their mind (they weren't immigrating into a 95+% Arab region to learn Arab & intigrate into Arab communities) & in so doing created a new sectarian conflict that never existed till zionism raised its ugly head

Terrorist Websites?

[AndyCanfield]

In the spring and summer of 2001 I often visited www.taleban.com for their version of the truth. In July it was hacked. After 2001/09/11 it disappeared. The FBI says there are Al-Queda web sites, but I can't find them. During the Vietnam war we found out how important it is to listen to "the enemy". So I've bookmarked http://www.kahane.org/home.htm just because, someday, I might want to hear their side of the story. I also check http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage for their views.

I have a few quotes for you

[Lord Kano]

"We are the president"
-Hillary Rodham-Clinton

"If the president ever lied to the American people, I think he should resign"
-William Jefferson Clinton

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
-William Jefferson Clinton

"The Constitution is a radical document... it is the job of the government to rein in people's rights."
-William Jefferon Clinton

Tell us all again who is the facist?

LK

Re:I have a few quotes for you

[Auriam]

You're right. The problem of facism in America has to be dealt with. How can we let these facists go around, judging people merely on the basis of face? Face is an inborn quality, not a personal choice - I can't help it if my face isn't like yours. I was just born that way. Isn't it time all of us - whether we believe in face or not - just got along?

Re:I have a few quotes for you

[Lord Kano]

I concede, you got me there. I misspelled fascist.

Care to deal with the issue now?

LK

Re:I have a few quotes for you

[pmz]

Tell us all again who is the facist?

Whoever happens to be the president at any given moment.

Power corrupts.

Re:America died

[Nept]

You're a loony. What in my statement
"If you're going to quote someone, keep the quotes in context"
disagrees with your statement about misquoting excerpts from a report?

So just shut the fuck up already, all right?

Re:America died

[Nept]

Je sais que vous etes francais parce que vous ecrivez l'anglais faible :)

Re:Stop Contributing To The A-I Conflict, By Not..

[cranos]

Ahh the old, its too hard so lets ignore it and hope it goes away trick.

Lets see they tried that one with North Korea as well and look how well that worked. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not going to be solved by the world turning their backs on it. Instead what we need is actual leadership, both from the parties themselves and the international community. Both Arafat and Sharron need to be replaced by people who are willing to talk about peace instead of the nationalistic chest thumping that passes as negotiations at the moment.

Gee; maybe...

[Millennium]

...maybe this means the current administration isn't as blindly pro-Israel as a lot of people have been led to believe?!

No, of course not. The current administration is one-dimensionally eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil; how could they do something like this?

Re:OFFTOPIC!!!!!!!! MUST MOD DOWN

[pmz]

Slashdot, as far as I have seen, is either party-neutral or at the most slightly pro-right.

Well, the extremes get fair representation, too. I've had my libertarian rants get modded up occasionally, and some snivling socialist ones get modded up highly, as well.

Remember, it takes only three mods to be "+5, Insightful." It's actually a minority voting system, in a way.

I get the biggest tickle out of people who have internal unresolved conflicts, such as wanting both low taxes but with nationalized health care or wanting to keep jobs but blocking free trade. Highly, reactionary and short-sighted, IMO. The best ones recently are people who think freedom of speech and protection of property can be preserved in light of integrated databases, surviellence AI systems, and cameras on every street corner.

I desperately hope the checks built into our government can balance things out, eventually. Otherwise, we'll just end up in a dictatorship, effectively, where the to main parties converge and political diversity becomes mythical.

Re:America died

[pmz]

I wonder if he would assert that a Dean administration would be no different from the Bush administration?

The only differences would be the buzzwords used to push their agendas for consolidating power in the government. The end result is the same, regardless.

Re:America died

[pmz]

Bush is someone who believe he's right.

The most scary thing I've heard him say to date is (effectively) "Don't point out a thorn in my eye if you have a log in your own" (referring to homosexuals).

A president of shouldn't be so blatantly passing a moral judgement on his constituents. It simply isn't professional, and it reinforces that if he could create a theocracy tomorrow by executive order he probably would. Of course, he would create this theocracy in his own image, due to blind arrogance.

Re:Web Site can Assist Terrorism: China's News Age

[Blaskowicz]

what about putting CIA's website on teh list :o

documentary on kahane

[akb]

"By All Available Means"

http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/17306

Its interesting that Kahane websites are considered terrorist but front groups which funnel money to them are not. See here.

Re:America died

[wakim1618]

Wanna cite where you got them quotes on Bush? I follow what he says and he has never come close to making the above statements. I bet that you made them up because you hate Bush. That is so pathetic and sad.

Sitefinder

[i)ave]

would be on that list if this were my world.