British Intel Shuts Down al-Qaeda Sites

DarkWolf0 writes "I guess it should not be too surprising -- the British Times Online discusses the recent shutdown of multiple websites associated with al-Qaeda. I wonder how easy it would be to associate any particular activity with 'terrorism.'"

Comments

Who and How?

[gbulmash]

TFA doesn't discuss how the sites were shut down: whether this was a DDOS, the government got the hosts to yank them, or if the sites themselves were hacked somehow.

If the government got the hosts to yank them, then the government's hand would be tipped because they'd have to get legal orders which would eventually be released by some leak. But if it's through hacking or DDOS'ing, it raises the question of whether the government really did it (or if public-spirited hackers went vigilante), and if the government did it, where do we draw the line on the illegality of such tactics?

Can a judge issue an order allowing the takedown of foreign sites via hack or DDOS if they are deemed harmful to national security? Can such an order be sealed and kept from the public?

Perhaps the point is moot as no one has surfaced a smoking gun, pointing to British intel. TFA just quotes Israeli sources saying the hand of British intel was detected, but not stating that any direct evidence has been presented to prove this.

I'll be interested in seeing how the story develops. There's a certain visceral satisfaction in seeing advocates of hate and violence silenced, but at the same time it's frightening to think of any government covertly silencing voices of dissent, as that starts a society down a slippery slope of oppression.

I'd be much more willing to believe that the Israelis have a covert and capable corps of hackers than the British. And if these corps, regardless of national origin, were capable of initiating DDOS attacks, I'd be curious as to where/how they got their zombies. It would be sad to think that a source of worms and viruses were government-paid hackers, building bot nets for black ops.

- Greg

Re:Who and How?

[Transcendent]

Can a judge issue an order allowing the takedown of foreign sites via hack or DDOS if they are deemed harmful to national security? Can such an order be sealed and kept from the public?

Yes, and yes.

And if these corps, regardless of national origin, were capable of initiating DDOS attacks, I'd be curious as to where/how they got their zombies.

You don't think they can get ahold of 16-20 year old computer geeks who dwell in their parent's basement?

There's a certain visceral satisfaction in seeing advocates of hate and violence silenced, but at the same time it's frightening to think of any government covertly silencing voices of dissent, as that starts a society down a slippery slope of oppression.

They'll do it as long as the public doesn't lash out against it. They know revolutions happen.

Re:Who and How?

[USSJoin]

Frankly, it's much more likely that it was done by MI-5 or MI-6, the domestic or foreign intelligence services, respectively. TFA *does* point out that evidence points to the British government, even though it doesn't disclose methods. The advantage of the MI groups, just like our NSA and CIA (respectively the equivalents) is that they really don't need pesky little things like the "law" on their side. That's why the government set them up; to have a nice little veil of "reasonable deniability."

Re:Who and How?

[bigman2003]

I don't think they are shutting down, 'Voices of dissent.'

What they are doing is shutting down a conduit for the organization of groups whose purpose it is to kill civilians, disrupt society, and bring down the current government.

If all they were doing was 'voicing dissent' then most Western governments would allow that. It's when they go a step further, and start killing people, that it becomes a problem.

Re:Who and How?

[DarkWolf0]

More then likely, it was done by MI-5 in my opinion. A good corelation is MI-5 being the FBI, and MI-6 being the CIA. The CIA is not "supposed" to be allowed to operate in the US, thus, they do not have to be burdened with some of the legalities that we do. And of course there is the reasonable deniability, because lots of stuff happen in the background that no public typically wants to see their government doing. Its not surprising that they shut down the sites either, because people are frightened, and at all levels of government and the military they are demanding a response *now* They have to be decisive if the government desires to show the people it can protect them. I wouldnt be surprised to see more things like this in the future. Heck, even France is supposed to be trying to(Or already has) expel 12 militant clerics from their country, so websites going down should hardly raise an eyebrow from a country that was actually hit.

Re:Who and How?

[olgrandad]

How about having the offending sites removed from the Wayback Machine? What if the significant content of these sites were posted to a popular forum, say Slashdot? Where will the big eraser hit next?

I believe the sites they took down were just propoganda sites, which IMO isn't incredibly significant. It's more of a visible, 'See, we are doing something.' I mean, it's entirely possible that some recruiting occurs online, but it's not likely to be a primary source.

Besides:

Ironically, the most readily available sources of accurate online information on bomb-making are the websites of the radical American militia. "I have not seen any Al-Qaeda manuals that look like genuine terrorist training," claims Clarke.

Re:Who and How?

[rm3friskerFTN]

"The Anarchist Cookbook" book reviews seem to contradict your review

Re:Who and How?

[bigman2003]

A group that is organizing with the intent to kill people.

Ever heard of 'conspiracy?'

Without a law like this, only the 'trigger man' would ever be held liable for a crime, and other people could shield themselves.

No, the web-site didn't kill anyone, but they used it for planning and organizing.

Here are some definitions for 'conspiracy.'

• a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
• a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
• a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

Re:Who and How?

[Zak3056]

How do you kill someone with a web site? Or is that classified?

I can't tell you who originally said this, but I agree whole heartedly, and I believe it answers your question quite well: "The most dangerous weapon in the world is a set of trained eyes and a radio."

Communication is a military neccessity--removing your enemy's ability to talk amongst themselves makes your job easier, and theirs alot harder.

Re:Who and How?

[Guspaz]

You should RTFA. A quote from TFA:

One global jihad site terminated recently was an inflammatory Pakistani site, www.mojihedun.com, in which a section entitled How to Strike a European City gave full technical instructions. Tens of similar sites, some offering detailed information on how to build and use biological weapons, have also been shut down. However, Islamic sites believed to be "moderate", remain.

Re:Who and How?

[Master of Transhuman]

Exactly. Clarke is right there.

Al Qaeda and most of its adherents are old-style "shoot 'em and blow 'em up" terrorists - no different and less sophisticated than most other groups thirty years ago.

The idea that they have some sort of advanced biochem/nuke weaponry is horseshit. They jack off to that stuff - they don't actually have any.

It's trivial to bring a city to its knees with some guns and some hand grenades - you just have to pick your targets and, most importantly, KEEP DOING IT. This business of pulling off one attack, then either not doing anything else for three years, or screwing up a second attack, just makes the first attack worthless.

Terrorism does not work unless it is CHRONIC. Look at Italy and Turkey in the 1970's - THAT was chronic terrorism and it nearly brought down the governments of those countries. Or the IRA in Northern Ireland.

The stuff done in Europe and the UK, let alone the one significant attack in the US, simply isn't on anybody's radar screen on a day-to-day basis.

Everybody's dancing around now because four bombs went off in London. Three months from now, nobody except the relatives of the injured and killed will remember it happened (and those relatives probably will get screwed out of any compensation they have coming by the bureaucrats in charge.)

Meanwhile, though, it will be used as an excuse to ramrod more laws giving the UK government control of everything. And the US will follow suit.

Look at the idiocy of starting random searches on the New York subway. Totally braindead. Nothing but CYA for the idiots running New York.

Anybody can walk into any crowded transit vehicle in the US with two hand grenades in jacket pockets, pull them out, pull the pins, flip the levers, say "Imshallah!" and toss them - and twenty people within twelve feet of him will die or be seriously injured. Get five guys to do that in New York - totally bypassing the cops (unless these guys really LOOK wacko) - and there will be no New York subway the next day. Do it on San Francisco's BART and cripple the city's transportation system for months.

As Rutger Hauer, portraying a "Carlos" type terrorist in "Nighthawks", said: "Remember - there is no security!"

There are only TWO ways to stop terrorism:
1) Find them and kill them BEFORE they act (only works for small, geographically concentrated groups.)
2) Remove the social and political reasons for their acts.

Re:Who and How?

[JudgeFurious]

Close. It's not quite that simple.

  There's that whole "non-combatant" thing that screws up the curve and makes simplistic answers like the one you gave untrue. Patriots tend to know who non-combatants are. Terrorists don't know the meaning of the term.

Re:Who and How?

[Zak3056]

Somehow, it think if we actually had PROOF, we wouldn't be shutting down sites at all, but monitoring them in order to track down ACTUAL PEOPLE.

Maybe this has already been done, and its intelligence gathering value is now outweighed by its usefulness to the bad guys. Or maybe the nature of the resource makes tracking the people who are talking problematic at best.

Unless, of course, you don't actually HAVE any information to back up your claims. So yeah, let's all have a big hurrah for this PR bullshit

I'm guessing you didn't RTFA. The British government isn't making some nebulous claims about terrorism--a newspaper is making the claim that:

1. there were various websites affiliated with al-Qaeda,
2. lots of them have gone dark, and
3. all the information on the matter they've come up with points at the british government as the reason for item 2.

It never ceases to amaze me the conclusions people jump to, despite having no evidence of their conspiracy theories, and having access to information contrary to the idiocy they're spouting. For a good example, see all the "goddamn republicans!" posts in the "porn taxing" story further down the page. The tax in question is being pushed by a democrat, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone.

Re:Who and How?

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

What they are doing is shutting down a conduit for the organization of groups whose purpose it is to kill civilians, disrupt society, and bring down the current government.

Well, without the "killing civilians" bit, I can think of any number of groups who would love to disrupt our society and bring down our current government. Matter of fact, I'm not sure that a few of them don't have the right idea.

Of course, the government would disagree; natural, really, having an interest in self-preservation. What is the threshold for shutdown, and how do we maintain transparency to ensure that the government isn't abusing the power to shut down non-violent (but strongly critical) sites?

Re:Who and How?

[Zak3056]

Or maybe none of what you just said is true at all.

Indeed, this is quite possible.

You're ranting about conspiriacy theorists, and here you are, making shit up. I highly doubt you have a single shred of evidence to back any of that up.

You might not understand this, but in general when someone says "maybe this thing, or maybe this other thing" they are engaged in a process known as "speculation."

My whole point is this doesn't look like a real victory at all. It's probably bad because we're loosing sources of information, and we might be shutting down sites that we shouldn't be.

And this, of course, goes to the heart of why my speculation is far more likely than your "we are teh sux0rs!" ranting. Do you really think that our intelligence arms (and by "our" in this case, I mean "western intelligence assets engaged in tracking al-Qaeda") don't understand that reading the other guy's mail is a good thing? They have admittedly made mistakes in the past, but do you really expect agencies whose heritage includes the Magic and Ultra programs to not grasp this idea?

Re:Who and How?

[Zak3056]

It doesn't bother you at all that sites are being shut down with basically ZERO accountability and no meaningful description as to what's getting them shut down?

Quite honestly, no, I don't. While I am opposed, in general, to the general sillieness that has resulted from "The War on Terra" (i.e. PATRIOT act, billions spent on absurd airport security measures, the Iraq war, etc) I do accept that the fight against al-Qaeda is a war, albiet one with rather nebulously defined fronts, and very limited objectives for our side other than "keep them from blowing our shit up."

The websites in question were, from the descriptions in the article, communications systems being used by the bad guys. This makes them legitimate military targets. If, in fact, this story is all smoke and mirrors, the website owners can certainly come forward and attempt to press their freedom of speech and/or the press cases (I'm not a Britton, so I don't know how this sort of thing works over there. Presumably, though, citizens--sorry, subjects--have some sort of recourse when their speech is shat upon by the powers that be.)

Re:Who and How?

[killjoe]

"Patriots tend to know who non-combatants are. Terrorists don't know the meaning of the term."

What difference does it make if you kill them anyway. I mean is it really that important that you feel sorry after you killed innocent civillians?

We bombed the shit our of fallujia twice knowing full well that there were going to be non combatants killed. The second time (according to the bbc) we destroyed 75% of the city. But I guess we are so morally superior to the terrorists because we know we killed non combatants and are sorry for it. Oh and we are so much morally superior then saddam because when he was trying to put down an insurgency he used chemical weapons to kill people. When we try and put down an insurgency we use conventional bombs to kill people.

Yup we are all sooooooo much better then those terrorists and saddam.

Re:Who and How?

[James_Aguilar]

without the "killing civilians" bit

Unfortunately, we aren't without that bit, so I don't think the question of when the government might stop has much relevance here.

Re:Who and How?

[Zak3056]

So if the feds show up at your door tomorrow and haul you away with ZERO accountability (no charge, no attorney, no trial), you're ok with that too? Or are you just totally certain that bad things only ever happen to bad people as long as you wave your flag hard enough?

The post you responded to noted that I'm against the vast majority of what has been done in the wake of 9/11. Anyone in the US swept up as part of an anti-terror operation should most certainly have their right to a fair and speedy trial respected (or to a cout martial, depending on their status and alledged crimes.)

Christ, look at how many mistakes, lies, and abuses have been sent our way in the WoT, and you still happily take their word for it when they say, "It was a bad website run by bad men. Move along, nothing to see here."

Hold on there, sparky--I take anything said by the US (or in this case, british) government with a large grain of salt. However, "they" sure as hell aren't the ones I'm believing here. I'm taking the press report at face value, yes, until information to the contrary appears. Let's look at this rationally:

1. There are websites run by and for al-Qaeda for the purposes of communications and the spread of propaganda. I don't believe we need to debate this point, but feel free to offer opinion otherwise.
2. When identified, we can either use these websites as intelligence gathering tools, or shut them down. In this case, it appears the latter course of action was chosen.

Look, I consider myself to be a rabid supporter of civil liberties, but there's a point when you need to accept that something isn't a civil liberties issue, even though it technically meets the definition of "free speech." To use an analogy, it would be like suggesting that a communications tower set up during ww2 for the purpose of vectoring bombers counted as part of a "free press" or that armed foreign soldiers on US soil had a 2nd amendment right to bear those arms. The idea of either of the above being protected rights is absurd on its face--and as I noted elsewhere in this thread, if a mistake has in fact been made, the site owner can step forward and press his/her free speech/press case to the appropriate court--and I, for one, would strongly support their right to do just that.

Re:Who and How?

[sumdumass]

But Britan never had freedom of speach. They were allow the freedom of speach but there is nothign specificaly allowing it. Conspiracy or not, they don't even need a law to be broken to stop speach.

There is no constitutional provision, no charter of rights or anyhting of the sort in england that protects the freedom of speech in any way. In the US and many other places there are. This is not to say that speech cannot be limited in these areas either. Already you are not allowed to make speech that will cause harm or violence. As it stands now if you yell fire in a crowded theater your (hit)gone. If you make a speech calling for the heads of some other people and someoen actualy injures them because of that, you are (hit)gone.

Does this mean that terrorist have already won? I don't think so. Or at least not to the degree you imply. Yes your percieved freedom has been limited because of their actions. No this freedom didn't exist in the first place, it just wasn't gone after. I would say that if there is realy somethign bad about this, it would be it took inocent people getting killed and several other fearing for thier lives before someoen had the balls to do what should have been done in the first place. It is one thign to call for the fall of a country, company, governmetn, or some form of coruption ect.. It is another thing to do so in a many that takes the lives of incoent civilians.

If all they went after were the police and military or governmmental personel, i could agree with you more. These terrorist are nothign more then a hate group like the american KKK who are attempting to get the attention of the governments they have a problem with by killing someone that has no say in the policies thier objecting to in the first place. Countries like spain gave them the impression that these tactics work. It is a pointless exercise to kill incocent civilians who are doing nothign more then trying to make a living. They have no say in the matter.

Freedom of speach wasn't designed to protect polular opinion but it wasn't design to protect people trying to comit murder by inciting violence with thier speech either. The concept of free speech exists but in england there is nothign to guarentee it as well as there shouldn't be anyhtign anywere protecting speech designed to murder someone.

Re:Who and How?

[stephanruby]

How about having the offending sites removed from the Wayback Machine?

If you ask nicely, the way back machine and google will remove anything personal of yours that is on their server.

For something like that especially, since it involves the government and their national security, I'll bet that it wouldn't require more than an email from a government official to have both of those organizations take down those materials.

Re:Who and How?

[Entropius]

So someone in, say, Pakistan violates UK conspiracy laws on a website hosted in Pakistan. Big deal. They're not in the UK.

The UK does *not* have jurisdiction to enforce UK law abroad. I have a picture of my girlfriend and I holding hands on my website. This is illegal according to Saudi Arabian law; do the Saudi authorities have the right to take down my website?

Of course not.

Re:Who and How?

[RWerp]

A website "How to strike an European city" is not a means of two-way communication which could be observed. It's a way of gaining followers and giving them basic training in a cheapest way possible. Observing those websites won't give any new information to British intelligence, since they already know how one could plant a bomb in the Metro. Or, the designers of the website also know it is publicly available and could be observed, and won't include any information which should not fall into Western intelligence officers' ears. All they care is to reach those young frustrated males which are prime species for suicide bombings, and teach them a few things. Making this a little harder for them is a good policy. Protesting against that in the name of free speech is plain absurd, it's like complaining that the British government did not allow Nazi propaganda in the newspapers during WW II.

Re:Who and How?

[uprock_x]

There are websites run by and for al-Qaeda for the purposes of communications and the spread of propaganda. I don't believe we need to debate this point, but feel free to offer opinion otherwise.

There is no 'al-Qaeda' as I understand it, it's like closing down warez sites; there is no 'Organization of Warez' run by one mastermind. But there are too sides to the propaganda. I would call 90% of coverage on the WoT in the mainstream media as fairly worthless propaganda, I don't see anyone saying let's close down Fox and the BBC. Of course I'm not saying these alleged aq sites are great sources of unbiased information with good intent, I'm sure they are not, but if propaganda were a crime Slashdot would be locked up with the key thrown away some time ago.

When identified, we can either use these websites as intelligence gathering tools, or shut them down. In this case, it appears the latter course of action was chosen.

Yeah but there is no 'we', you are not participating in the decision. Remember Bliar sees other issues as a slippery slope; notably criticism of the US and Israel. So who will be next ?

I consider myself to be a rabid supporter of civil liberties, but there's a point when you need to accept that something isn't a civil liberties issue

In this case shutting web sites down is an easy gesture to present to a Murdoch zombified population that their government is 'doing something'. But censorship typically creates more problems than it solves and has backfired before with regards terrorism.

Re:Who and How?

[eyeye]

It doesnt apply to everyone. For example the tabloid papers that printed satellite shots of "saddams WMD facilities" that incited support for the attack on iraq have not and will not be prosecuted. Neither will people like George Bush or Tony Blair who did their best to ensure the attacks were carried out.

If the police thought I arranged for someone to be killed regardless of whether it seemed good morally they would probably arrest and question me, if however you do the same on a grand scale and are the leader of the labour party they wont even bat an eyelid.

Re:Who and How?

[arivanov]

Objection your honour.

Britain is a signatory to the European convention on human rights which makes the freedom of speech and freedom of expression an essential part of British law.

Re:Who and How?

[Shaper_pmp]

First off, who says it's definitely the British government? The article passes on one bit of unsubstantiated hearsay, with no references whatsoever, from unspecified "Israeli intelligence agents" (who could well be doing it themselves and looking to avoid consequences). Now I don't mean to come off as one of the tinfoil hat brigade, but that's hardly definite - the article makes the accusation then immediately veers off into discussions of who's being shut down and a philosophical discussion on whether technology helps or harms us more.

In addition if the Israeli intelligence agents knew damn well it was British intelligence, why would they go public confirming the suspicions of the people it was happening to? The British government and the Israelis are supposed to be on the same side in the War on Terror - they're needlessly shooting British intelligence in the foot. Slightly suspicious, to my mind.

Secondly, I'm as rabid a supporter of civil rights (and civil disobedience) as the next guy, but what exactly are you trying to say here?

"Well, without the "killing civilians" bit, I can think of any number of groups who would love to disrupt our society and bring down our current government. Matter of fact, I'm not sure that a few of them don't have the right idea."

Yeah, this is with the "killing civilians" bit, so that's completely irrelevant.

Unless you're also arguing for al-Quaeda's sovereign right to blow up whoever they want you've neatly sidestepped the actual question and reduced a complex, real-world issue into an unrelated black-and-white no-brainer that you happen to be on the "correct" side of. This is a variation of the straw man tactic, and it's intellectually dishonest.

Apologies if it was unintentional, but it's a common tactic (called "framing the debate") used by the Rebublican party and media in the US, and it makes the "framer" look like they've won while leaving the actual debate unresolved.

"Of course, the government would disagree; natural, really, having an interest in self-preservation. What is the threshold for shutdown, and how do we maintain transparency to ensure that the government isn't abusing the power to shut down non-violent (but strongly critical) sites?"

Now this is the actual debate. However, by bringing it up here you seem to be implying that it was unjustified in this case - do you believe so? And why?

Obviously, regarding freedom of information there has to be a line drawn somewhere - instructions on how to make plastic explosives from bleach should not be wrapped around the tablet dispensed to violent paranoid schizophrenics, for example.

Now, given no evidence whatsoever, you seem to be assuming that these websites were shut down by British intelligence, and wrongly at that. Nobody here has any idea what was on the websites, who was running them or exactly why they were shut down.

I'm not saying the sites weren't totally innocent, but isn't it slightly possible that (for example), British intelligence alerted the Pakistani authorities to actual, documented lawbreaking connected with these sites, and the Pakistani authorities then closed the sites themselves?

That seems much more likely to me than rogue British intelligence factions starting black-ops DDoS attacks on suspected (but actually innocent) foreign websites.

Of course, that doesn't mean they were justified, but nobody in the article or on this thread has a single piece of hard evidence that could offer a conclusion either way. And that makes which way they jump very interesting to watch.

Re:Who and How?

[Jim Hall]

A group that is organizing with the intent to kill people. Ever heard of 'conspiracy?' ... Here are some definitions for 'conspiracy.' ...

Hey, be careful with that list of definitions. I'm not saying I'm backing al-Qaeda or terrorism, but shutting down web sites under your definition of "conspiracy" leads to misuse. It just so happens that on US soil around 1776, some people met your definition. Except we called it a "Revolution" and/or "Independence":

• a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act {such as, to overthrow British rule over American colonies}
• a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot) {such as, to overthrow British rule over American colonies - which was illegal under British law}
• a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose {such as, to overthrow British rule over American colonies - which was illegal under British law}

It cuts both ways, man. The danger with giving up a little freedom (speech) to have a little security is that you quickly have neither.

Re:Who and How?

[Bwerf]

Well, if I was on Britains side around 1776 I think that's about how I would describe it, yes.

Overthrowing the government isn't something the government should take lightly on, even if it worked out ok in this instance (I leave the debate about that to the trolls).

Re:Who and How?

[theonetruekeebler]

The UK does *not* have jurisdiction to enforce UK law abroad

Hopefully you will see this as a key to the problem: Terrorists train in Pakistan, doing perfectly legal things like firing AK-47s and learning how to communicate secretly, then do a perfectly legal thing like fly to London, then do a perfectly legal thing like associate freely with one another. Then they all get on the Underground on July 7 and blow themselves up, murdering dozens of people, the majority of whom believed the war in Iraq was wrong.

I invite you to consider the difference between the following two statements:

• "Abortion is wrong and should be stopped."
• "Abortion is wrong and should be stopped by murdering the doctors who perform them. Here are the home addresses of ten doctors who perform abortions:"

Believe it or not, there are legitimate limitations on speech. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that the right to free speech does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. He went on to write "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Granted, that's about free speech in the United States, where for the most part any asshole can speak his mind, including me. But the right to free speech, here or anywhere, grants nobody sovereign protection to place a want ad that says "I will give a hundred thousand dollars to the first person who agrees to murder my billionaire husband."

September 11, 2001 and July 7, 2005, and March 11, 2004 show the flaw in honoring an international border that your enemy does not. It does not matter in what country it was said "I will teach you how to glorify God by detonating explosives with a cell phone" when 190 are killed in Madrid as a consequence. If there was a time when a criminal could stand across a border and shout "neener neener" at those whose countrymen he is about to kill, that time has ended, and I wholeheartedly endorse every effort to disrupt the enemy's lines of communication.

Re:Who and How?

[Theatetus]

What they are doing is shutting down a conduit for the organization of groups whose purpose it is to kill civilians, disrupt society, and bring down the current government.

Yeah, and they're also shutting down one of our best sources of intel on an organization of groups whose purpose it is to kill civilians, disrupt society, and bring down the current government. So you'll forgive me if I'm not applauding this. (There's a saying about counterterrorism: every time there's a cheer in the J Edgar Hoover building, there are groans in Langley and Ft. Meade. I don't know if that's true in England, but I can imagine so, especially if they're doing stuff like this.)

Re:Who and How?

[Master of Transhuman]

That's rich - mentioning Daniel Pipes - one of the biggest neoconservative, racist assholes involved.

Pipes is a Zionist asshole who wants Israel to rule the entire Middle East and probably either exterminate or enslave the remaining Arabs.

Try reading Juan Cole's blog if you want useful commentary on the Middle East and Pipes.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Brilliant

[nokilli]

We criticize terrorists for choosing violence over speech to make their point. Then we take away their ability to speak.

Even from a tactical point-of-view this doesn't make sense. They cite one web site as offering technical instruction on how to commit terror, OK, but what about the rest which undoubtedly contain information authorities could be using to predict and prevent future attacks?

Do they actually think that this will hurt their recruitment efforts? That some guy who is already of the mind to commit suicide for the cause is going to change his mind when his browser gives him a 404?

How is it in this most important of issues we see the least intelligent people making all of the decisions for us?
--
Why didn't you know?

Re:Brilliant

[zxnos]

We criticize terrorists for choosing violence over speech to make their point. Then we take away their ability to speak.

their speech is intended not as a civil discussion but as a way to communicated the means and methods for murder of innocents. in the u.s. groups are allowed to say what they want... ...until they start calling for the murder of other people.

i agree with a post above, better to try and trace the communcations and run raids.

Re:Brilliant

[superyanthrax]

Yes, we are squelching the terrorists' speech, but think about what they're talking about. They're talking about killing us all in a massive holy war and taking over the world. There are limits on what is acceptable speech, and I'm certain most would agree that talking like this is not acceptable.

On the other issue, I think there is a very delicate balance. On one hand, we could just hack the web site/servers and monitor them to monitor the terrorists' movements. However, letting those web servers stay up creates a great danger. Many young prospective terrorists are frustrated with their situation and hate the Americans, but they aren't necessarily convinced to perform terrorist acts until they see Al-Qaeda's recruiting or propaganda. Al-Qaeda uses their web sites to recruit more members faster, because more sympathizers can see the terrorist's message. It works like this with most rebel groups; they need to get their word out in order to more effectively recruit those who sympathize. Without getting their word out many sympathizers would never join up. The Internet is one of the best ways to do that. If we brought the web servers down, it would put a major crimp in their spreading of propaganda and it would slow the flow of young Muslim men signing up to become terrorists.

Personally, I would side with the people who want to bring the web servers down, because I'm certain that the terrorists would quickly find out that they are being hacked if we tried to hack them, and fix the problem, and then we're back to square one.

Re:Brilliant

[DarkWolf0]

I believe the problem they had with the websites taken down wasnt because they were afraid of them spreading a hateful message, but more of them becoming virtual control centers, where they could spread out messages to operatives throughout the world with ease, chat boards to discuss upcoming operations, plans freely available for them to use, etc. Of course, it may not have made a huge dent, but you have to start somewhere. The part about recruitment is moot, because I dont know many people that speak Arabic out of the Middle East, and the ones that do live there cant typically afford the Internet ;)

Re:Brilliant

[mpthompson]

With one phone call they could have the world's media at their doorstep.

Very true. As this ABC Nightline story interviewing the mastermind behind last year's Beslan school massacre, even the most shameful butchers of 300 innocent children can spout their hatred and bile in our western media.

What amazes me is that ABC can track this SOB down for an interview, but Russian intelligence can't.

Re:Brilliant

[Eil]

We criticize terrorists for choosing violence over speech to make their point. Then we take away their ability to speak.

A bit of googling would reveal hundreds, maybe thousands of web sites promoting hate and violence against some group of people or another. Many have been online for a very long time. Al-Qaeda is unique in that they're the only group currently organizing to act on their promises. It's not their ability to speak that's causing concern, it's their open willingness to kill innocent people.

To a degree your argument makes sense. But also look at it from the government's point of view. Jon Stewart interviewed Fareed Zakaria (click to watch) a few days ago on The Daily Show. Fareed appears to be an expert on the things which drive terrorism in general and al-Qaeda in particular. Currently, there's no evidence that the group that staged the bombings in London were actually linked to the "official" al-Qaeda group at all. They were in fact probably just "disaffected youths" who took al-Qaeda's idealogies to heart and acted on them. Right now authorities are seeing much more activity from these tiny unaffiliated groups than from al-Qaeda itself and these are the groups that they're having the toughest time countering.

How to stop them? Cut off their information and inspiration. This of course would probably not magically cure disaffected young Muslims in Europe. Fareed Zakaria says in the interview that the best and possibly only way to stop Muslim extremism in Europe is for policy-makers, leaders, and citizens to actually sit down and figure out how to better integrate Muslims into predominantly white cultures. <cynicism>Of course, this won't happen as people 'round the whole earth are generally opposed to actually thinking and working to change things for anyone but themselves.</cynicism>

Perhaps more importantly (and more obviously), shutting down the sites is also meant to be a bit of a psychological strike. If someone's interested in al-Qaeda and they visit 12 websites out there promoting it, they're bound to come to the conclusion that the group is active and gaining strength, making it a much more attractive "club" to join. On the other hand, if all of the sudden the same person notices that all the al-Qaeda sites have gone missing, it raises suspicion that the group's control is slipping, even if nobody's been arrested or charged with a crime in real life.

In the end, this won't stop al-Qaeda members from communicating with each other and spreading propaganda, it just pushes them underground a tiny bit further.

Re:Brilliant

[phoenix.bam!]

Wanting to be in the media makes it a bit easy for the media to find someone. I doubt the guy wants to be in a Russian holding cell.

Re:Brilliant

[ryanov]

I personally love it when people tell me all about what "they" want. When's the last time you've discussed anything with one of them. What is your information source? Hell, who ARE "they?"

The us versus them shit is going to end up killing us all. I've had enough of it.

Hey!

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel is a Registered Trademark of the Intel corporation....

Quit using it. Or Intel will get angry.

Wouldn't it be easier...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to post those websites on /. ?

Re:Strange

[astrashe]

I'll bet they were doing that.

Whether or not allowing the sites to stay up for the intelligence info was probably a hard choice all along, and after the recent bombings, they probably just changed their minds.

Very cool, but...

[Nuclear Elephant]

British Intel shuts Down al-Qaeda Sites

1. Why is a PC chip manufacturer shutting down al-Quaeda Sites?

2. Do the british chips run linux?

Re:Very cool, but...

[dancingmad]

No, but I hear they're good with fish.

Re:Very cool, but...

[ArAgost]

yes, but they run them on the left :|

finally Intel doing something innovative

[RelliK]

And here I was thinking that only AMD does something new these days.

Re:Why is this under IT and not YRO

[grumpygrodyguy]

This is an example of shutting down expression on the internet. As far as the IT part goes, its easy to turn off a site.

The reason is because political issues are becoming more important every day, and payola sites like Slashdot are trying to stay on the fence and keep everyone happy for as long as possible.

Once a website gets branded as partisan, it immediately alienates a large percentage of its readership. So hot-button issues like Iraq, Terrorism, and Civil Rights are marginalized from discussion because it's not good business to 'get involved'.

Re:Strange

[sploxx]

You will find only the casual websurfer like you and me - and brand them as terrorists. Brilliant.

Is it now illegal to look at such websites? I don't know. But I surely googled 'jihad' etc once.
What did I found? Unreadable arabic websites and some english ones which only enforced my view that these people are really such assholes as you can also see by looking at their actions.

But the fact that you nowadays could 'get flagged' or even get a very nasty visit by looking at such content is silly. More, it makes me both afraid and angry. Terrorists attacking our freedom. Oh yes, it seems that they are very effective now.

The root causes of terrorism

[rm3friskerFTN]

From the Wizbang Blog ...

The root causes of terrorism

OK, I've been giving some thought, and I think I've got a handle on The Root Causes of Terrorism. Just why do people turn to terrorism to achieve their goals?

1) It's simple. It has an ease and ready accessibility that essentially any group, of any size, can pull off a "terrorist" attack with very limited resources.

2) It's flashy. Terrorism is "the new coolness." It gets a lot of attention, very quickly.

3) It's empowering. The one element that all terrorist groups have, at the start, is far more passion than power. They care a great deal about their cause, but they simply can't get anything done through more legitimate means. So they start getting violent, to increase their profile and extend their power.

4) It's deniable. If a government wants something done, but doesn't want to risk the backlash of doing it openly themselves, they can try to get some "terrorists" to do it for them. This way, they can stand back and say "tsk, tsk" when something bad happens that benefits them.

5) It's cheap. Modern weapons and training cost far, far more than an average individual or group can afford. But bomb belts probably cost less than a couple of hundred dollars to make. Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols put together the Oklahoma City truck bomb on their average salaries.

6) It's tough to fight. A long time ago, a bunch of countries laid out a set of rules for warfare. These rules were designed to, among other things, minimize the number of civilians killed in war. In exchange for some serious restrictions on what combatants could do, large groups of people, institutions, and buildings were declared "off limits." The terrorists systematically look at those restrictions and use them as guidelines for how to best attack our forces.

Many people look at the terrorist attacks [in the civilized world] and wonder why it's happening. I look at the above and wonder why there haven't been more.

Re:The root causes of terrorism

[william_w_bush]

if i may add:

7) The major networks do all the actual propoganda for you. It's like having your own PR firm. The media tends to magnify attacks it can dramatize, or that have victims you can sympathize with, which is why there is more coverage for an attempted suicide bombing in london, which killed nobody, compared to the hundreds of thousands killed in the russian war in chechnya, and the genocide of more than half a million people in darfur.

Not that I'm claiming moral superiority, I mean I sure as hell perk up when the news shows a tragedy happening in a place with a macdonalds in the background compared to some dusty 3rd world fuckhole, but that's part of being an arrogant westerner.

Re:The root causes of terrorism

[dr_dank]

Seems like 1,2 & 5 could just as easily describe Paris Hilton.

Terrible article...and here's why...

[divide overflow]

1. It only identified one website that supposedly was shut down.

2. I'm pretty sure they got the name of that website WRONG (www.mojihedun.com isn't registered...but the Google-suggested alternative www.mojahedun.com is, and a quick whois suggests that it is the site they really meant to name).

3. DNS requests to the authoritative DNS servers for www.mojahedun.com show they are having problems, which may have convinced the writer of the article that the website has been shut down.

4. The article has no byline, so nobody gets the blame for any mistakes or inaccuracies.

I saw this article earlier today and immediately noted the lack of hard facts and named sources. It's hardly worth the space it occupies. I'll pay more attention when it names names and isn't just fluff and regurgitated B.S.

Re:Oh no, they will shutdown me!

[An Ominous Cow Erred]

If you were suddenly confronted by a group of men brandishing guns, wouldn't your first thought be to get away? Especially if they were shouting at you in a foreign language?

These were not regular police officers in uniform, and they were understandably worried and probably as a result weren't as clear about who they were.

I wouldn't be surprised if in his panic he thought *THEY* were terrorists.

The irony is, apparently he wore the clothing to cover his equipment because he was afraid people would be suspicious of all the wires and such he was carrying (those being the tools of his electrician trade).

Re:Think it through...

[cahiha]

How do you know what those sites actually were about? I certainly don't.

Furthermore, "encouraging" violence is part of everyday political opinions: US politicians do it just about every day.

So, do you have a specific argument for how shutting down those sites is going to make us all safer? Because, a priori, restricting free speech and political discussion would seem to only strengthen the arguments of the terrorists.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Luddite]

>> But the fact that you nowadays could 'get flagged' or even get a very nasty visit by looking at such content is silly. More, it makes me both afraid and angry. Terrorists attacking our freedom. Oh yes, it seems that they are very effective now.

The focus of any act of terror is typically not to maim or kill a few dozens, but provoke reactionary policies by the government, inconveniencing millions. Look at the basque movement for classic example of this, where concilliatory gestures from the spanish government were met with increasing violence. Admittedly they were attacking targets within their own country, but the dynamic is identical.

No terrorist organization can do a fraction of the damage to a government that it will do to itself in reacting... How many lifetimes worth of hours have the American public lost in increased airport security checks alone? There are no bombs going off on US soil, but you're getting screwed every day to prevent it.

Either way the terrorists win a little bit.

He Spoke Excellent English

[Avenel]

The guy had lived for 3 years in the UK. His family said he spoke excellent English. He ran because he was in the country illegally.

Soviet Army Recruiting in London

[Shihar]

So... it is a-okay to bomb a terrorist camp and kill everyone in it... but suddenly their 'rights' are violated if someone knocks out their websites? Get a little fucking perspective please.

As to what is accomplished, that is easy. First, it makes low level support more difficult. You want to prevent casual supporters from throwing a few bucks in their direction.

Second, it is a propaganda war. If a terrorist blows himself up in London, murdering a pile of innocent civilians, it is best to deaden whatever benifits they get out of it by making it harder for them to get their message out.

The reason why this is being done is the exact same reason why Britian didn't let the USSR set up a Soviet Army recruiting station in London. Is it going to make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things? Probably not. Is it worth while to try and disrupt a terrorist's cells propaganda machine? Sure, why the hell not.

Put another way, if a British rapist made a website and posted movies of him raping 13 year old girls, would you be terribly upset if it got shut down? Get some fucking perspective.

obSMAC

[Repton]

We criticize terrorists for choosing violence over speech to make their point. Then we take away their ability to speak.

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

-- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

This is good news

[h2d2]

The sites they are talking about are not your every day religious zeolots web forums, they are hardcore extremist websites that are constantly monitored by the media, and always quoted for breaking hostage stories from Iraq and all.

And they are not easy to find either. The last one I stumbled upon was kr-hcy.com, a known terrorist group from Pakistan that's officially banned in the country. Amazingly, their website is hosted right here in the U.S.A by Globat.com, who failed to respond to two emails I sent to them complaining why they were letting the site go on... greedy mother---ing webhost.

Re:Strange

[YrWrstNtmr]

No terrorist organization can do a fraction of the damage to a government that it will do to itself in reacting... How many lifetimes worth of hours have the American public lost in increased airport security checks alone? There are no bombs going off on US soil, but you're getting screwed every day to prevent it.

And yet a government cannot do 'nothing' in response to a terrorist act or threat. That would merely invite ever increasing acts, until they HAD to do something. (WTC I, Khobar, USS Cole, Nairobi, WTCII)

Either way the terrorists win a little bit.

Exactly. In this sort of dissimilar warfare, 'winning' by the 'good guys' is extremely difficult, if possible at all. It may take decades or centuries.

But in the meantime....ignore it at your peril.

Re:This idea of hampering of freedoms...

[lgw]

OMG! Someone who lives near someone who once did something evil dared to express moral outrage! Silence them at once! We must censor such unacceptable content!

Wrong is wrong, even if a less-than-moral person is the one pointing out that it's wrong.

Re:In USA...

[modecx]

No, I'm pretty sure that it's quite illegal to threaten violence or even suggest it to other people. Hate speech is also illegal, but I don't know exactly what laws these fall under.

Nazis and the KKK are legal here because they chose their words very carefully. We all know what their agendas are, but as long as they don't threaten anyone or target any specific group or ethnicity they're in the clear apparently.

So, basically, their message can be "Won't someone think of the white people?!", and they can pretend all they want to be for the rights of white people, etc. without fear of the law.

Re:Strange

[steelfood]

But in the meantime....ignore it at your peril.

Nobody says to sit around and wait to get blown to bits, or get turned into another +1 for the next bodycount.

Vigilance is the best defense. If there's a bag on the floor and nobody seems to be claiming it, say something. If somebody's acting suspicious (like a good friend suddenly gone strange), confront the person. If somebody wants to ram the plan you're riding in into a building (and has a gun) stop that person. Terrorism is not a war against a nation, it's a war against a collective group of people (hence the name, i.e. it inspires terror in the common). Most people do not accept that they are in a battlefield. Most people don't want any part of a war, any part of a fight they do not perceive is theirs. Most people would rather stand by idly and wait for someone else to stop the terrorists than contribute something meaningful. I've seen this with my own two eyes, and when I see it in the people I know, it makes me ashamed. And then, there are those people in denial that they are even at war (i.e. the government's policies that brought about this, it should be the government fighting).

The recent terror-inspired draconian laws were put into place to remove the responsibility from the public. If the terrorists blow something up and kill a bunch of people, it becomes a failure of law enforcement. If those plans were foiled, law enforcement were able to do their job. Well, obviously, if these newfound powers of law enforcement still did nothing to prevent the next attack, then they didn't have enough power. If these powers allowed them to accomplish the task, by all means, keep giving them more power so that they can do an even better job. What needs to happen is the return of power to the hands of the common--the people, whom the government is supposed to serve. And for that to happen, the people must accept the responsibility of defending their life and more importantly, their way of life.

Re:Your argument is Bull Shit.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I also wonder if the original poster is correct, do "Western" governments have websites that advocate killing Muslims because they are Muslim? I suspect not. Certainly there are factions of "Westerners" that believe this, but my guess is their websites don't last long either. Hypocritical or not, al-Qaeda websites (or any websites) that advocate murder based on religious faith should be shut down.

Why I'm against Palestine statehood

[Simonetta]

All the reasons listed above are the reasons why I am 100% against accepting statehood for Palestine. The Palestinians have been the leaders of terrorism against both Israel and the West for 35 years now. Most of the incomprehensibly brutal and sub-human things that we have come to associate with organized terror they either invented or brought into international prominence. And they have done it for one reason only, to be accepted as an independent country by the rest of the world.

Therefore to accept the legitimacy of a Palestinian state would also mean accepting the legitimacy of the means that they used to achieve it. It means granting them a free pass for all the horrible, horrible crimes that they have committed against innocent people for 35 years.

And it means that every group of disaffected shit-for-brains losers in the third world with a case of AK-47s, a pound of C4, and a psychopathic holy man (and there are a lot of groups like this) will believe that the way to a seat in the UN is to murder innocent Americans and Europeans. After all, they will think, it did work for the Palestinians!

I believe that that world should accept that regardless of whatever legitimate political grievances that the Palestinians may have, the possibility of their having a independent country is an impossibility given the crimes that they have committed against ordinary people for decades. For every innocent civilian murdered by the Palestinians, the global diplomatic acceptance of their country should be postponed for one year.

Basically in international relations, you get the type of behavior that you reward. If we legitimize the crimes of the Palestinians, then we are guaranteed to get many more crimes of this nature committed against us in the future.

It's said that the Palestinians are simply too backward and dysfunctional to understand this concept. It's said that the Palestinians 'never miss an opportunity to ''miss an opportunity.'' Well, that is their problem, not ours.

The whole Palestine question is quite minor compared to the amount of news media attention that they have received for the past 35 years. You could take all the Palestinians out of the Middle East and put them in Mexico City and it would be weeks before anyone noticed that they were there.

Hell, you could take all the Palestinians and put them in the middle of the endless slums of Lagos or Nairobi or Abidjan or Kinshasa and they would just -disappear- as if they never existed. The only reason why they are considered important news is just laziness and inertia on the part of the new media companies. What they do is considered important only because, for some unknown reason, they were considered important in the distant past. The Palestinians are like some absurd American daytime television soap opera; no one knows or cares the endless twists of their plots and history but the show can't be canceled because everything is on auto-pilot.

Can you imagine if from the late 1940's to the present day the African-American people of the USA adopted the same tactics and methods to obtain justice that the Palestinians have used? Both groups were at basically the same position as oppressed minorities in their societies at that time. If the Black people did to the White people in America the same things that the Palestinians have done to the Israelis, there would today only be about 50,000 or so African-Americans left alive. And they would all be living in a concentration camp in northern Alaska. And every one would have a microchip embedded in their head; broadcasting their location to the helicopters flying over the camp 24/7/365.

With all respect and honor - Shalom - to the memory of those lost in the holocaust
The Palestinians don't realize how lucky they are to have the Israelis as the occupying force in their land. Having suffered the wors

Re:Why I'm against Palestine statehood

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

It's said that the Palestinians are simply too backward and dysfunctional to understand this concept. It's said that the Palestinians 'never miss an opportunity to ''miss an opportunity.'' Well, that is their problem, not ours.

Hell, you could take all the Palestinians and put them in the middle of the endless slums of Lagos or Nairobi or Abidjan or Kinshasa and they would just -disappear- as if they never existed.

The Palestinians don't realize how lucky they are to have the Israelis as the occupying force in their land.

Your views sir, are to be frank, extremely odious and an anethema to decent human compassion. You need to take history lessons. Fast.

Re:Why I'm against Palestine statehood

[demachina]

That is a really one sided picture of the reality that is Israel and Palestine. You should try to learn about the other side of the story, because there are always two sides in these things and you will have a lot better understanding of reality if you understand both sides. Things are never as black and white as you try to paint them.

For example Haganah and Irgun were for all practical purposes Jewish terrorists organizations. One of Haganah's more active members would end up as Israel's Prime Minister, Menahem Begin. Haganah turned in to the IDF, Israel's Defense Force when they siezed control of Palestine. In one their more famous acts of terrorism they leveled a wing of the King David Hotel with a bomb just like the Palestinians you hate so much will do years later. It helped drive Britain out of Palestine, which in turn allowed Haganah and Irgun to seize control of Palestine and create the state of Israel. So why exactly is it OK that the state of Israel was created on the back of terrorism of Jewish origin but its not OK for the Palestinians to use it to try and get a homeland back.

Another incident you should probably learn about to level your view is the massacre at Deir Yassin. Irgun massacred 100+ residents, many women and children in a Palestinian town that had remained largely neutral in the fighting between Arabs and Jews. The Palestinian didn't just pack up and abandon their homes to the Zionists, and opt willing for life as stateless persons in refugee camps. Incidents like Deir Yassin caused many of them to flee for fear they would be massacred if they stayed in Palestine after Haganah and Irgun started gaining control of the place. Many suspect Deir Yassin was perpetrated precisely to start a Palestinian flight which allowed Jews to seize their homes, farms and business for free and with no further bloodshed. It is a classic ethnic cleansing tactic just like you saw in Yugoslavia in more recent times, or Sudan today.

Though to be fair and balanced (don't you hate that Fox tag line that everyone uses now) there were Palestinians massacring Jews and Jews massacring Palestinians through most of the 20th century as soon as it became obvious Zionists were in the process of trying to buy control of Palestine land followed by waves of Jewish immigration both legal and illegal from 1920 through the late 40's.

"Therefore to accept the legitimacy of a Palestinian state would also mean accepting the legitimacy of the means that they used to achieve it."

So again how come you and most of the rest of the world are willing to accept the legitimacy of Israel when they used the same techniques to create their state?

Re:Why I'm against Palestine statehood

[demachina]

Dude, there wasn't any anti-semitic vitriol at all in that post. You however are a sterling example of why there is NEVER a balanced discussion of the problem in Israel because no one can even being to relate the Palestinian side of the story without someone like yourself SCREAMING ANTI-SEMITE and attempting to end the conversation.

Maybe you could make a case the King David Hotel was a military target but Deir Yassin most decidedly wasn't. I note you didn't mention it in your little rant, because you have selective memory. It was a case of Jews killing innocent women and children too.

You might also want to remember Sabra and Shatila in 1982. These were Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon where some of those who fled Jewish control of Palestine ended up. When Israel invaded Lebanon and gained control of these camps the IDF, in particular Ariel Sharon, intentionally let Christian militia in to the camp that they knew had a blood feud to settle with the Palestinians. The militia proceeded to massacre everyone in the camps over 36 hours, many women and children while the IDF sat outside and listened and ignored reports of what was happening inside. The number of dead is unknown the estimates range from 350 to 3500. It was massacre by proxy.

The key point here is that yes Palestinian terrorism is abominable, but so are all the instances when Israelis have killed innocent civilians and they have killed a lot of them over the last 60 years just like the Palestinians.

One thing I really can't stand are people who selectively choose to ignore all the atrocities their side commits, while they rant about the other side and call them animals for doing pretty much the same things.

depends on what is "hate and violence"

[zogger]

In some areas of the world, main stream news website sources from the west are considered hate filled propoganda arms of the governments there, and one can safely assume that aerial bombardment and assaults from "the west" and etc against entire cities *might* qualify as "violence".

Just depends which side of the fence you are on and which way you are looking.

we draw the line on the illegality of such tactics

[sykjoke]

If the Police(Government) do it then it's not a crime, if the plebs do it then it is.

I don't know how you missed the fact that we've hardly been sliding down the slope in the UK since the end of the cival war that gave us the liberties in the first place.

Re:Strange

[Malor]

Are you kidding? The terrorists spent a couple years planning their op, and spent 19 lives (and plane tickets) to take out the towers.

Let's ignore the direct casualties and property damage, and instead look at the whole picture.

In response to what twenty people did, we have, in response, killed tens of thousands of people, lost about twenty thousand of our own soldiers (dead and wounded), and have spent nearly two hundred billion dollars in a War On Terror, with no end in sight. For the money we're paying, we could lose a World Trade Center EVERY OTHER WEEK and STILL be ahead on costs.

Our first war front, Afghanistan, at least isn't a complete disaster. The government is not in tight control, but we could 'win' there, where 'win' is defined as leaving behind a stable, democratic government. Now, we probably won't LIKE a stable, democratic Afghan government very much, nor they us (if they're free, one of their fervently-exercised freedoms will be to dislike us), but we don't have to like them... we just have to be reasonably sure they won't bomb us. That's still possible.

Iraq, on the other hand, was completely and totally bungled. It IS a total disaster. We have created the world's best training center for terrorists, where disaffected Iraqis can learn to fight Americans in the comfort of their own homes.... we'll break right in! We face escalating violence in that country, to the point that some people are starting to talk 'civil war' instead of 'insurgency'. The American-intalled government is looking very shaky indeed. The problems there are getting worse, not better. We lost that war at Abu Ghraib; we showed the Iraqis just what kind of people run our country. The Iraqis will never, not EVER, accept any government we impose. It's just a matter of how many body bags we choose to fill before bailing out and watching that place turn into a firestorm.

Back at home, we have lost rights by the score. The government now has many, many powers to intrude into our lives that it has wanted for years, but which we (rightly) refused them. We have few protections against unreasonable search. We are building a surveillance society, the thing we feared most as a country for so many years. We are IN a police state, it's just not one that has shown its fangs very much yet.

We have lost habeas corpus. The government can call you an enemy combatant and disappear you.

Win? The terrorists didn't "win". They hit the FUCKING JACKPOT.

Re:Oh brother...

[Jeremi]

Well, gee, then maybe try not to be in a religious group that advocates suicide bombing, and you won't have a problem with the whole terrorist label

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right? Because our government never labels anyone a terrorist unless they actually are terrorists. (Of course, Richard Jewell, Steven Hatfill, and Hossam Shaltout might disagree with you)

Conspiracy theorists are idiots - our government commits its evil acts in plain view.

You're right about conspiracy theorists being idiots, but if you are suggesting that the US government never engages in illegal or immoral covert actions, you are wrong. Yes, the government does commit some evil acts in plain view, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also do evil things in secret. You may recall the Iran/Contra scandal, the Bay of Pigs scandal, the toppling of democratic governments in Iran and Chile -- and those are just the ones that got screwed up and became public. Presumably there are others that were successfully kept secret (or at least "plausibly deniable").

Re:"judge's order...allowing the takedown"?!?!?!

[Skjellifetti]

In the US at least, most of the stuff like right to due process only applies to citizens

No. In the US, due process applies to anyone who is in the US. The Vth Amendment applies to all persons, not just citizens:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Same for the XIVth Amendment which was added in the aftermath of the Civil War:

... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Re:Enemy Communications

[demachina]

"Al Jazeera continues to grow unimpeeded by the west."

That is a provably false statement. Al-Jazeera has been continuously and massively harassed by both the U.S. military and the puppet interim Iraqi government during and since the Iraq invasion. Their offices were bombed, journalists killed by U.S. forces, their office in Iraq was closed for a time in 2004, and might still be, I'm not sure. Paul Wolfowitz in particular accused them of inciting violence and sought to shut them down.

Sometimes Al-Jazerra's reporting is a little over the top but to their credit they are one of very few new organizations with a big reach that tries to tell the whole story about what happened and is happening in Iraq and rest of the Middle East. The U.S. and its puppet government has throughout refused to count or report the number of civilian deaths their forces have caused, and they have actively suppressed pretty much all the video coverage of the carnage in Iraq during and after the invasion.

To their credit both Saddam's government and the U.S. were attacking their coverage as biased in the other sides favor during the war so they must have been doing something right.

I'm inclined to say Al-Jazeera certainly has some bias in it but its NOTHING compared to the bias in U.S. coverage of the Middle East or any of the government supported media outlets in Iraq.

Re:Hey I'm a terrorist

[lucm]

I oppose Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. I MUST be a terrorist.

No, to be a terrorist you have to put bombs in the subway or crash planes in buildings. It takes a little more than posting stupid comments.

I oppose Britain's involvement in Iraq! There. That should qualify it being a terrorist statement.

If one day the actual terrorists win, you won't have the opportunity to expose your lack of wits. So I guess it is a good thing to do it now, while you are still protected by these people you are bashing.

Re:Strange

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Is it now illegal to look at such websites?

A UK government clamp-down on internet abuse is being rushed through parliament following the apparent ease with which terrorists can obtain the wherewithal to make bombs like those used in the recent attack on London.

'Terrorist and extremist use of the internet poses a significant threat,' a Home Office spokesperson told Chemistry World, 'We are already working with our G8 and European partners to find ways to tackle the sites and identify individuals and groups responsible. People who download bomb-making instructions and then try to follow them could well be guilty of the new proposed Act Preparatory to Terrorism offence, which we announced on 18th July, and will be taken forward into the new Prevention of Terrorism Bill.'

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2005/July/2 0070502.asp

It says "and then try to follow them," but it also says that they're going to try to find ways to find out who's reading them. Even if you don't follow them, you can expect to get a knock on your door (or, if it's anything like the American BATF, a battering ram knocking your door down) just for visiting such sites. It's for the chiiillldren, after all.

Re:Strange

[demachina]

"And yet a government cannot do 'nothing' in response to a terrorist act or threat."

Simple answer. The U.S. should have used everything it had to swiftly and massively crush Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, using every civilian airliner and ship it could find to get the forces there as quickly as it could. If Pakistan objected they should have been crushed too because the Pakistan secret service more than any other organization help nurture and create the Taliban and Al Qaeda and they are still unscathed today. They are also most probably still sheltering the Taliban and Al Qaeda today possibly including Bin Laden.

Instead they fought a weak proxy war in Afghanistan using local war lords, with very dubious motives and loyalties, mixed with special forces and air power(though there were very few actual targets to bomb). They managed to scatter Al Qaeda and the Taliban instead of ruthlessly crush it. They certainly failed to strike a crucial blow at Tora Bora. Once Al Qaeda and the Taliban made it to sanctuary in the tribal areas of Palestine and the mountains of Afghanistan they have gone largely untouched for the last four years.

Where did the U.S. focus its attention, and the lion's share of its military, money, and resource instead, Iraq which had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda.

So today Al Qaeda is alive and well, spread around the globe, and using Iraq as a recruiting poster for the malevolence of the U.S. towards the Muslim world. Instead of crushing the problem at the source, the U.S. and British are engaged in a futile strategy to try to stop attacks which are by nature nearly impossible to stop. Israel has been trying for decades, using much harsher measures in a much smaller country and failed. The effort is costing a fortune and its mauling civil rights.

All in all it was a strategy conceived by morons who, to cover their tracks, constantly tell everyone what a great job they are doing, and what great war time administrations they are. In fact they are making no headway in the war and seem to mostly be playing right in to Al Qaeda's strategy. One of Al Qaeda's main goals is to launch a small number of attacks and let the U.S, Britain etc. mangle their own economies and political standing in the war with misguided overreaction.

In Iraq Al Qaeda no doubt sees a replay of Russia in Afghanistan. Tie up the U.S. there with an insurgency for the next 10 years and inflict massive economic, political and morale damage on the U.S and Britain. The U.S.S.R's misguided war in Afghanistan was the single biggest contributor to its ultimate collapse. Al Qaeda came in to being figthing that war with CIA backing and they no doubt want to repeat their victory in Iraq against their former benefactors.

Re:Al Qaeda will just go elsewhere

[lucm]

These sites are not online planning tools for specific groups, they are mostly part of a mass media promoting hate and violence, and explaining (as an example) How to Strike a European City.

I guess that tracking and shutting them down will not eliminate terrorism, but at least it might reduce its influence over weak-minded people.

Re:Oh no, they will shutdown me!

[InfiniteWisdom]

They shot him five times in the head while he was pinned down by two other officers. At that point he couldn't possibly have been a threat... it wasn't police trying to stop a potential suicide bomber... it was a simple execution.

If they thought he had a bomb, why did they let him board the bus when they were following him?

Clearly evil

[No Such Agency]

And they are not easy to find either. The last one I stumbled upon was kr-hcy.com [kr-hcy.com], a known terrorist group from Pakistan that's officially banned in the country.

You can tell they're evil - all their media requires RealPlayer.

Thank you for your reply

[Simonetta]

Thank you for taking the time to write a long and detailed reply to comment.
    I will research the incidents that you have referred to in your comment and realign my perspective in order to get closer to a just truth and balanced point of view.

Shutting them down will have an effect

[JavaRob]

I would think hacking into the sites and logging everything would be more productive. Shutting them down will only cause them to find other means of communication...

That's only if you assume that the "other means" will be as effective. I don't think they can be.

I'm going to ignore the freedom of speech issues for the moment and say that shutting them down is the better option. Extremist websites (especially well-established, well-developed sites) are invaluable in giving the *impression* that a cause is legitimate and well-supported.

Your group might consist of just you and your neighbor, but online you can create the impression of a huge movement. Psychologically, this is a tremendous power. You can use it to intimidate people into joining you, and to give courage to people already on your side. Regular people still tend to equate websites with newspapers, or other real-world things that are actually held to standards and require money and support to create. Forcing extremist websites offline forces that many fewer results to come up in Google, and forces the ones that survive into fly-by-night mode (which usually means ugly and hard-to-find)... which remove much of their power as first-contact recruitment tools.

All of that said, any restriction of free speech still makes me nervous (think about it -- they probably also recruit by talking about the injustice in Iraq and seeing who agrees the loudest... if we can make anti-government talk illegal, we can stop this method!). Plus, if they're not applying an even standard to sites they shut down (i.e., any site, Muslim or not, including exhortations to violence will be shut down, etc.) this becomes an obvious injustice = yet another recruiting tool.

Re:Strange

[shplorb]

If you haven't already, you should download and watch the BBC documentary series "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of Politics of Fear".

It has an interesting take on how basically, the cronies behind Bush have created the current situation.

After seeing the Panorama show "The War Party" I'm rather inclined to agree with it.

Re:"judge's order...allowing the takedown"?!?!?!

[NarrMaster]

Your post should be modded up. The prevailing rhetoric among the right wing hate mongers such as Limbaugh that due process only applies to citizens is sickening, and your post makes me slightly less irritated in knowing that some out there know better.