I keep getting emails telling me that another organization has blocked Jihad Watch on its computers. With all this happening so suddenly in so many places, obviously this is a decision made in some central location, with impact within all these different places -- but I don't know the source of it. So today I'm going to try to contact every company about which I have been notified and ask them to remove the ban. Many thanks to all those who have written in with information and suggestions; I am very grateful for your help.
Some people have asked me: "But why should employees be reading Jihad Watch on the job? If employers want to block it, that's their right." But when CAIR and pro-jihad sites are accessible and Jihad Watch isn't, this isn't a question of trying to keep employees' minds on the job. This is an attempt to silence us.
This is a tried and true tactic of the Left: intellectually bankrupt as it is, it silences its critics rather than dealing with them on the level of ideas. They can't answer us, so they try to shut us up and discredit us. Leftists, as well as apologists for Islamic jihad terrorism, label their opponents "hatemongers" and "bigots," hoping thereby to make people of good will turn away from their message. And the politicized nature of this Internet censorship will come as a surprise to no one.
In reality, Jihad Watch is dedicated to the defense of human rights for all people against those who would impose Islamic law, with its institutionalized discrimination against women and religious minorities, over both Muslim and non-Muslim societies. There is no "hatred" in this, except when we report the words of hatred and supremacism of the Islamic jihadists. We are trying to raise awareness of the nature, extent, and goals of the global jihad, which threatens everyone who loves and cherishes freedom and the equality of rights of all people before the law.
And so, we are going to fight this, as best we can, and I am sure the other blocked sites are also. Wherever you are working today, if you get a chance please take a moment to check if you still have access to this site -- and if you don't, lodge a respectful but firm protest. Let us not take lying down being vilified and silenced, when we are telling the truth.
My employer doesn't filter web sites, but I'll be checking here to see if there is some other task I can do to help out.
I can still get here. But.... I program the firewall. We prefer to manage or employees as responsible adults. Everyone has work to do.
My job uses "Smartfilter". Readers can follow this link:
http://www.securecomputing.com/sfwhere/index.cfm
Put in the url for jihadwatch.org then choose to have the site reclassified. I requested a reclassification to "General News". It may be more effective if we all choose the same reclassification. Maybe there's a better category than General News.
Complaining directly to employers will probably be less effective than complaining to these filtering companies. Chances are pretty slim that your employer will actually take the time to contact the web filtering company.
Why is "JW" so slow posting comments today?
It sounds like what needs to be done is to find out what filter these companies use. More than likely they have updated their software.
It is pretty sad that so many Cultural Marxists are running both the government and business. If our country succumbs to this Islamic threat that will be the reason why, death by political correctness.
Robert,
Alive and well in a "private" consulting firm in NYC, so that is no surprise.
This move is a "higher up" centralized decision without a doubt. I will inquire about the several City agencies that we interface with, from my contacts there. The answer will be quite telling, I am sure.
I can access JW here at work. I work for the Air Force. For some reason, I cant access dailykos. Something about abusive language. :-)
The charges of hate-mongering are incorrect as far as the articles by Messrs Spencer and Fitzgerald are concerned.
The charges are right, though, in some cases when it comes to the comments. While most commentators maintain the same impeccable standard, a minority of commenters is indeed ignorant, bigoted or racist.
But even that doesn't justify censorship.
If JW is blocked at your work, please post the name of the web filter that your work site is using.
Darcy
When I posted on another thread recently it was taking 'forever' to show the updated post so I opened up another browser window (I use Firefox) and used that to check out the J/W site. My post was 'up' already but when I rechecked the original browser it looked like it was still uploading....
This might explain why we see so many double posts, the post IS up but there's a serious lag.
I personally think that you will have no joy with the companies, though one could argue with an investment company the value of keeping abreast of Jihad following 9/11 makes economic sense, but worth a try.
The database companies are the best target as lipsore indicated, however I would also check out what LGF is detailed as and I would suggest that you get them to change your definition to Politics/Opinion and Politics/Religion.
But have a lawyer handy just in case. I would advise including the mission statement in your appeal especially the third paragraph, I think a threat of legal action for the definition of hate speach is a good leveller if they do not move their butts.
Truth is not a defense.
Robert,
If you want to know how your website inspires hate read your readers' comments. You often say that you are not responsible for what your readers write. That is true, but that does not mean that their hate is not inspired by what you write. Stop playing the naive idiot. "Oh who me, I am for human rights, bla, bla, bla" That just sounds so right when your readers are calling to nuke the entire middle east. Can you please explain that discrepancy ?
Thanks for your reply, jihadtobejoking.
Here's another question: Can you furnish me with an example(s) from previous history in which the villains were appeased and the people who spoke the truth about the villains were denigrated and censored?
Anyone? I want to find parallel examples to what's happening today with the villain -Islam- and those who speak the truth about it, we here on JW/DW, Gates of Vienna, etc...
Sublimer,
We have said here repeatedly that calls to nuke Mecca, etc., are not welcome. Please be so kind as to let me know where commenters have called for "nuking the whole Middle East," and I will remove those comments.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
I hope they are blocking the British Medical Association website.
Smartfilter has Jihadwatch labeled as Hate Speech I'm sure all the other filters do as well.
Darcy,
I recommend any fairy tail. There are many stories of villains, trolls, monsters, heroes, unicorns and ponies.
Flying_Dutchman,
I haven't seen the many denigrading comments that you have, but then maybe I'm one of the bigots you're mentioning!
We comment in this fashion because we are SICK TO DEATH of the PC crap, and deliberate ignorance, we see among Muzlims, their Apologists, and people in charge of decision-making, media, et al.
And if our language is offensive, I think much of it has to do with how offended we are. When the world sinks to such depth of morality, are we just to respond with "Oh, my!" and nothing else?
I have spent my ENTIRE LIFE being nice, and tolerating things I never thought I'd have to. Where has that gotten me? I became a pushover, something I NEVER thought I'd become. I had to reclaim myself.
Don't get me wrong - I'm still nice, ethical, and loyal...all those qualities I sought before. But when people do not deserve my good opinion, THEY DO NOT GET IT. And I see no need to apologize for this decision on my part.
These comments you're talking about MAY BE what's getting Robert & Co. in trouble, but frankly I don't think so when CAIR, MPAC, and anyone else covering up the Truth is still available.
My diatribe aside, I do agree with your views on censorship but not with the cause of this particular situation.
First thing I did when I came in was access this website - and everything is still a-ok. And this is an ultra-lib organization that I work for in the bay area.
But, I will keep alert!!!
Remember how in "The Wizard of Oz" "Oz" says "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain/The Great and Terrible Oz has spoken"?
Well, "Allah" is "Oz" (doesn't exist), and Muhammed is, of course, the man behind the curtain. So, here we are at JW and on many other sites as "Toto's" pulling aside the curtain of the Koran, Muhammed, and "Allah" - yet, many people apparently want to keep that curtain intact.
Why?
And another thing, I think you will have to make comments require a sign in or account rather like LGF, that will stop the bots charging through the comments section looking for hate speach...
Robert,
There are way too many, but here is one for example:
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/000928.php
Maybe from now on, you need to filter the hate language in the comments. That way servers won't feel the need to filter and censor your site.
sublimer
Mr Spencer does not need to 'inspire' hatred, disgust or any negativity whatsoever where Islam and its proponents are concerned, they are more than capable of carrying out that task themselves by their actions and more importantly 'inaction' where a deadly silence is more often than not the order of the day when members of their 'faith' are caught out in acts of terror. But you know this already don't you! 'course you do, were all adults here.
I wonder what Charles at LGF is doing, I wonder if he is blocking the bots that trawl through the comments sections, he mentioned recently that he stopped some from doing this recently. Makes sense if the bots can't access the comments then they can't redefine as hate speach and rely on the articles for their categorisation.
Just ideas, I hope that helps, my strongest advice is to meet up with Charles and ask for his help after all your both on the same side.
I just read a review of Smartfilter at,
http://www.securecomputing.net.au/review/4047,network-filtering--smartfilter.aspx
The review states,
"URLs are didvided into different categories, including sport, sex, web-mail and so on. Most of this is pre-configured - Secure Computing provides a control list, which is updated daily".
It seems someone at Secure Computing has added Jihad Watch to this control list, which is being sent out to client severs daily.
Hey, guys, let's not pretend: I suppose bots may be trawling comments here, but I would be willing to bet money that Robert's site would be designated in this way even if he had _no_ comments. It's obviously a political designation, because he dares to call a spade a spade when it comes to Islam. And he's awfully nice about it, too. He still holds out hope (which I don't) of some sort of "reinterpretation" of Islam that would get it off the violence track. But he tells the truth about what's going on now, and I'm convinced _that's_ what's causing this blocking.
Sublimer:
You had to go all the way back to 2004, to find an example? Hmm...
Uh, Adolph Hitler is not found in a fairy tale, sublimer. Along with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin etc etc...
But then, you like the aforementioned. Esp. Hitler, as he was a Jew-hater like yourself.
Fairy tales, right.
Sublimer,
Interesting that you had to find a 3-year-old thread to substantiate your point.
And on it, you overlooked this:
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Miss_Anthrope - don't you know Islam is a one-way street?
They can insult us, even kill us, and we can't even refer to them as being "Islamic" or "Muslims" in the News! And those identifiers are FACTS!
Sublimer;
Perhaps you should consider adding Jihadwatch.org to your filter list.
Darcy,
Appeasing villians is a core problem western democracies are struggling with these days with freedom.
We see Democracy as an ideal to build up. It regulates our lives because we want it to work for the good of all, to edify all. Isamists want to destroy Democracy because in their minds Allah did not invent Democracy so it is a bad thing to them.
In the recent program Muslims Against Jihad (which can be found on youtube.com) former UK Islamist Omar Bakri basically says "to stop us the west needs to destroy the very freedom it is so proud of, so...democracy hypocrisy." I don't have the exact quote available but I do recall that Foehammers blog has a piece on it.
What the islamists are doing is in itself is a form of hypocrisy. It is the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater and getting off the hook by calling a race card during the trial. Figuratively speaking
As for the Oz like curtain, well islam has a built in method of protecting itself against scrutiny from outside (or inside for that matter)and that would be declaring someone takfir, charging questioners/dissenters as apostates or infidel and cutting of their heads to silence dissent forever.
If it is true that bots are scrolling through comments for hate language, the sublimer's offering in this thread of:
"That just sounds so right when your readers are calling to nuke the entire middle east. Can you please explain that discrepancy" ?
is contributing to the misnomer that this is a hate site. Bots look for words, not context.
Once again, Islamic jihadists rampage in the UK and all sublimer feels the need to do is to troll here and state that pointing that out constitutes as hate speech.
I long for the day that I am finally spared from his valueless opinion.
Robert,
This really smacks of someone physically or manually placing JihadWatch.org in the filtered list. I believe that it is a large outsourced/offsite hosting site or webcontent filtering company. Someone within that organization has taken it upon themselves to place Jihad Watch in their list of hatesites.
I would go further to add that it possibly could be a Muslim professional within that organization that has done it.
I posted a couple of days ago the same theory. I know for a fact that this is happening at another webhosting company where my brother works. They host for very large firms, DOD/government enterprises, etc. My brother is even required a government security clearance. They are also hosting several sites for some ME corporations. His manager and the three above him are all Muslims. He is unable to access many sites from his office or his laptop that are considered nonPC. Needless-to-say he doesn't believe in the Islamic threat. So he will give me no help trying to solve this dilemma.
Haha, Darcy!
It IS a one-way street, but I've decided to drive on the sidewalk in the opposite direction if I have to to do what is right!
You know me, I call 'em like I see 'em, ESPECIALLY if it's not "allowed"! Always makes people squirm in their seats...
Here's a post about it by frequent commenter Morgaan Sinclair:
http://www.bloggernews.net/18370
Sublimer,
If Robert posted the complete text of Ayman al-Zawahiri's latest "message", would that be considered hate speech? You know, the message where he calls for widespread attacks on the West?
Closing our eyes to what is going on around us will not make it go away.
From the London Telegraph:
The three "cyber terrorists," who had close links with al-Qaida in Iraq, admitted using the Internet to incite Muslims to a violent holy war.
The Telegraph said the three men ran the "cyber-jihad" on websites run from their bedrooms. They appeared to normal lives, studying and living with their parents.
Tsouli came to Britain with his family from Morocco in 2001.
In one of his messages, he said he was "very happy" about the July 7 bombings in London in 2005.
sublimer
I read the thread you cite and your comment provides no context for that discussion. That thread was ALL ABOUT Pakistan and nuclear weapons and how to deal with that issue. The use and non-use of nuclear weapons by jihadist and defenders of the west is an essential part of the discussion regarding worldwide islamic jihad, in my opinion. If I am wrong I will, of course, follow Robert's directions on commenting, or not.
It is understandable for a poster to react to a reported incident out of anger and suggests we "nuke Mecca", BUT it is not excusable and is inappropriate.
And, to continue with a thought by Miss_Anthrope,
Since coming to this site and reading the books about jihad, and becoming aware of the threat of islamic jihad my entire world view has changed. I considered myself quite the optimist and believed, and taught my children to believe, that humans are all essentially good and to learn how to trust people generally and to be cautious but give them the benifit of the doubt in anything they say.
I have changed all that. I thought the creation of evil men (Hitler's Stalins, Khomieni's) was a result of genetic defects or other abnormalities in their development or environments and this only happened in few and selective occassions throughout history. A crazy theory probably but I did want to understand what made men evil since I don't believe in god or the devil. (8 years of Catholic school indoctrination had its' reverse effects)
I've seen different estimates of the size of worldwide ummah. Most say more than a billion. Ok, lets just take the 1 billion for discussion sake. According to my president it is only the "extremist" ( in other words, the most devout, pious and purests muslims) we have to worry about. I don't agree with that but I'll accept it, for now. Is that 15% or 5%. OK, say its only 10%. That is 100,000,000 people on this planet that think it is OK to conquer me or kill me.
I teach my kids differently now. No more benefit of the doubt bull. And it is a shame. I have to tell them about all the EVIL people out there who want to hurt them.
So, to end this little rant I will quote Miss_Anthrope and say me too.
"I have spent my ENTIRE LIFE being nice, and tolerating things I never thought I'd have to. Where has that gotten me? I became a pushover, something I NEVER thought I'd become. I had to reclaim myself. "
"Here's a post about it by frequent commenter Morgaan Sinclair:"
Posted by: wrathofasma
An excerpt of the article by Morgaan Sinclair:
"And if you want to know the degree to which you are not allowed to speak about Islam and the problems in the Qur’an and the hadith, just note that the last time that traitor Azzam the American gave us a preening adolescent lecture on what we are and aren’t allowed to think, say and do, he had a copy of Robert Spencer’s book in his hand."
Lol, wasn't that copy of Robert Spencer's book photoshopped in as a joke?
Someone ought to let Morgaan know.
Good to see Morgaan Sinclair speaking out on this issue though.
Any censorship of this site is directly or indirectly somehow and in some way related to the new Congressional leadership.
I have commented here in a manner which some could be taken as a ruthless attitude towards Islam. I will refrain from such, but what will happen, if the Muslims explode a nuke in this country? What will happen even if another terrorist attack happens here? The Anglosphere has a hostility and ruthlessness that is far worse than anything Muslims have ever propagated. I am convinced that it is Mr. Spencer's implied intent to forestall this through education leading to appropriate government policies. I am not so sanguine as to human nature. I have acquired this view from the works of Victor Davis Hanson. He would endorse this possibility.
Further, I feel that Islam will not reform until forced to do so out of necessity. They get too many rewards for their present conduct. Emotional release?!
This is outrageous nonsense. I myself had trouble logging in a couple days ago. (Don't know what caused it.)
It is a blatant attack on truth, and the right to free-speech and free-thought. Being anti-Islam is not a crime! How can being against the criminal founder of a very flawed belief-system be a crime? It cannot! And should NOT!
You know, PMK, sublimer's attitude about the nuke discussion from 2004 - in which it was a heated discussion, not incitement - reminds me of Barry Goldwater.
Goldwater stated in his 1964 Campaign that nuclear weapons would be integral to our foreign policy. The outrage in response to this comment cost him the Election, although Johnson did play on it to create more of a stink.
By 1984, nuclear weapons were a VITAL part of our foreign policy discussions, especially like when Reagan walked out at the Reykjavik Talks.
Goldwater was right, was he not?
You are absolutely right by reminding sublimer that closing your eyes doesn't make the threat go away.
It just means they MAY kill you LAST.
Or MAYBE FIRST.
Also mention terrorism risk and country risk. JW gives info on these not easily accessible. Also learning is not just learning the good stuff about people. A business needs to learn the potential problems before taking actions, not afterwards. This is an obligation to shareholders.
CAIR as a site doesn't provide information on dangers to investing. CAIR doesn't help on the risk of spikes in price of oil or even availability on oil. CAIR doesn't help in assessing Gulf War III.
Some people blame PNAC for the Iraq war and similar things. If that is true, then PNAC and similar sites need to be available to see the wars they foment. So if the critics are right, these sites foment war and you have to read them to find out about the war. If the sites are right, you have to read them to get warnings of terrorism. Either way, you need to read them.
Antiwar.com and Rawstory are also other sites that can be compared to JW but which take the other side in part. Some of the JW stories are also on Rawstory and Antiwar.com.
The threads on Rawstory contain extreme comments that the people who run the site themselves call anti-Semitic.
quote
July 2nd, 2007 at 20:19:45 From: Ken
So war criminal Wolfie lands another cushy job funded by Exxon, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. Here is a man who should be at the gallows, responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq. His ancestors should have been gassed at Auschwitz.
end quote
Wolfowitz lands new job at think tank
I assume the person who made that comment regrets it and wishes they could edit it.
Since the left is allowed the latitude of this level of frothy comment with censorship, others should not be censored, especially when it serves the business purpose of identify investment or other risks or pitfalls.
JW actually tells you a lot more about what offends Muslims. Even to meet with Muslims and do a deal, you learn more about what to avoid at JW than you do at sugar pie MSM sites.
That should have been the left is allowed frothy comments w/o censorship.
Also, when businessman from those countries meet with Americans they are told what offends Americans, not that Americans are the same as them. Their people are told, don't make crude anti-Semitic jokes as an ice breaker in a business deal with Americans.
JW also tells you what offends Muslims. The MSM tells you Muslims are the same as Americans. That doesn't prepare you for a business meeting with them. They are being told in blunt terms what offends us, JW tells you in blunt terms what offends them. That's useful to know before the meeting.
Remember, this letter is about "shareholder value".
The letter should emphasize that. It protects employees and investments. Business people can be kidnapped.
Search
Ross Perot Iran
Perot had an employee taken hostage in Iran.
"
In 1979, two EDS employees were taken hostage by the Iranian government. Perot directed a successful rescue mission composed of EDS employees and led by retired Green Beret Colonel Arthur “Bull” Simons. Perot himself went to Iran and entered the prison where his men were held. Ken Follett wrote a best selling novel, On Wings of Eagles, about the rescue. An NBC TV miniseries was later made from the book.
"
http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm
Protecting shareholder value requires knowledge about the negatives not just the positives. The same applies to protecting employees. Also, its important to know the laws of these countries, and court decisions. JW covers those. That is valuable information.
There is also the question of how women employees of Western companies are treated in those countries. Western companies have an obligation under law to protect their women employees from harassment at all times and places on company business. The same applies to other minorities, including religious ones.
Many companies purchase subscriptions to the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, etc for management employees to read.
High level management employees often get their own Bloomberg, which the company pays over 1000/month for them. They are expected to use it, not ignore it.
Companies spend this money so their management keeps informed.
JW quotes many articles in newspapers that companies may subscribe to. But few companies buy all these papers for all their management staff. So to get stories on this topic from all the top papers, the companies can subscribe to JW, for free.
This promotes shareholder value for the same reason that the Financial Times, Daily Telegraph and other papers that companies pay subscriptions for. Companies need to know this information.
Another phrase is "pre 9/11 thinking". The US government had a lot of information before 9-11 that it didn't act on sufficiently to avoid 9-11.
Companies don't want to be caught with pre 9-11 thinking. They don't want to miss a war in the Middle East that curtails oil supplies and raises the price.
Companies may be considering a new building that is energy efficient. Auto companies decide whether to gamble that consumers want energy efficient cars or guzzlers over the next 5 or 10 years.
Businesses themselves decide whether to buy energy efficient products. They decide whether to make them or invest in them. This depends on an assessment of risk of war in the Gulf.
JW helps with that, more than any other site.
What is the competing site for assessing that risk?
Most terrorism is linked to radical Islam. What other site is as good on learning about radical Islam as JW? JW is the "best of breed" site for learning about the jihadis.
Robert,
I didn't "go back" three years to find the quote. I just google "jihadwatch.org" and "we should nuke them". I could have also tried "nuke 'em", "wipe them" "Round them up". And you don't get one result back either but many. You should check it out. It's time to clean the house I guess.
First rule of leftist multi-culti dogma.
#1- Everything has a reason. All reasons are morally equivalent if properly evaluated.
#2- Since everything is equivalent nothing can be known certain or judged on moral grounds.
To call the hater a hater breaks the first two highest forms of reason on the left. The equation was formulated to apply a broad filter with a narrow focus bypassing critical thinking, and actual research on any subject to reach the same conclusion in any subject. Nothing is known for certain, everything is morally equivalent when properly evaluated.
In the end the only thing that is known for certain is that any westerner that breaks these rules of reason is a hater, and must be filtered out of the debate, because they didn't follow the rules.
Due to the fact that it is real hard to actually win debates using this method new rules have to be made. Like the "Fairness Doctorine", for instance, or server "Content Filters" ... in the interest of proper elightenment.
You broke all the rules Robert, and therefore are a threat.
lipsore
I did what you suggested. JihadWatch had 3 categories, and for each of them, I selected one, went into the re-categorization page, and then selected General News, History, Religion & Ideology and Blog/Wiki.
Are they the only filter out there, or are there more? Do Symantec/Norton have any filters - I'd assume they'd be most widely used. How about Google? Any others?
Morgaan did write a good article (I had no idea that hotair too was included). Too bad she chose to have a hostile attitude towards those who disagreed with her on Serbia and moderation of Islam. Had she simply agreed to disagree with most here on those issues, and not spam every Serbia related thread, things could have gone a lot more smoothly - after all, she wasn't the first, and won't be the last, to have differing views on this issue.
sublimer complained that JW posters have mentioned "nuking" Mecca.
I think those comments are counter-productive, since most of the anti-jihad at this point is non-violent. The best weapons are education, freedom of speech, and honesty. RPG's, napalm, bullets, and knives are pretty far down the list (especially if we can just keep jihadists away from our citizens). Our goal should not be to kill, our goal should be to protect ourselves.
But personally I disagree that those "nuke" statements are necessarily "hate speech". I believe they have been made in the context of retaliating if there is a Islamic nuclear strike within the U.S. If that were to happen, some actions that are distasteful and inconceivable now, may become necessary and easily conceivable.
On the day after Pearl Harbor, if nuclear weapons existed, some may have called for their use. Should those comments have been censored and banned as "hate speech"? Because, eventually, when we saw how fanatically suicidal the Japanese troops and citizens were, that "extremist" view became a necessary reality.
Again, I think that talk of "nuking" this or that country is off topic and irrelevant to how to actually fight the jihad. But I also think that sublimer's shocked gasping of "Hate Speech!" is disingenuous, given the rhetoric of the jihadists.
Sublimer, is a pain in the arse.
I object to 'all' internet censorship. I object to the label 'hate speach'. It is not up to someone else to define 'hate' to me. I have already defined it, as the dictionary doe's. The internet is full of what is called, hate speach. Anyone ever go to Yahoo's Islamic chatrooms? Hate speach is being used as a PC sledge hammer. The advocates (leftists, Islamists) are dishonest, they label anything they dont like as 'hate'. The word 'hate' is being mis-used in almost every instance.
What a bunch of crap...but it is crap that needs to be dealt with...
With this and the 'fairness doctrine', it is almost time for 'pirate radio'. They cant shut that down...
Sorry, I always get 'speech' and 'speach' mixed up.
Robert said
I think that's the right way to go. Calling for boycotts or threatening lawsuits or saying that these companies are traitors and jihadists is only going to create enemies. We need these companies (the ones using the blocking software, and the ones adding JW to the blocked list) on our side. They need to be educated about what Islam really teaches, and what Robert and Hugh and Marisol and Jay say in response. We are not their enemies, and they should not be ours. JW's message is not hateful. It is life and freedom affirming.
But Robert also said
Who is "us"? You've responded in the past to writers who label you and JW as "far right wing". But you seem to be making the same assumption here, that "we" are not on the Left (to use your nomenclature), "we" are on the Right. In fact, I think some of us are from both camps, just as some of the jihadist apologists are from both camps. I think the Left/Right dichotomy gets the discussion going in the wrong direction. I don't deny that some on the Left are jihad apologists, or that Leftist jihad apologists may use different tactics (including the one you mention here) than Rightist jihad apologists. But to claim that "they" are on the Left and "we" are on the Right is a gross oversimplification.
Sublimer is your typical elitist liberal who thinks HE KNOWS BEST and believes in censoring anyone who disagrees with him.
You can't please his kind or even have a reasoned argument, like most most budding authoritarians/stalinists - he wants it his way and thats it.
Doubt it? go to DailyKos,Huffpost or any other major liberal echo chambers and see how long you last after you post some material about Islam and Jihadis. After flaming you they'll ban you and remove all your posts. And in that instance you'll see what liberals are really about.
They are not about freedom of speech, tolerance, respecting others POV. To them you are either with them or against them. Oddly enough just like the Jihadis.
The "intellectually bankrupt" left (assisted by some fellow travelers on the right -Senator Lott) is also attempting to silence talk radio by reviving the fairness doctrine. Eternal vigilence is not just an empty phrase.
This Jihad Watch ban is less about censorship than it is about our enemy, Islam, undermining our capacity to defend ourselves against it.
Sublimer, if I go to an islamic site with unmoderated comments, find an old thread that hasn't been looked at for a while, and post something to the effect "we should kill all Kafirs," on the thread, does that make the site a hate site, or reflect the views of the administrators? Would/should the site then be blocked as 'hate speech?'
Slightly off topic.
Here is a useful site to remember on your bookmarks. It is possible to check whether a site is blocked in China. Not surprisingly, JW is blocked there as well. To see if a certain site is blocked in China. Here
Slightly off topic.
Here is a useful site to remember on your bookmarks. It is possible to check whether a site is blocked in China. Not surprisingly, JW is blocked there as well. To see if a certain site is blocked in China. Here
Kafir Nonbeliever: That site to test if sites are blocked in China is only a tool for the Chinese government. The server is placed in China and has to compare the URL with the China censorship database.
But the real aim is of course to update the censorshio database.
I tested my (severel years old) swedish blog and it wasn't blocked, but as one could expect 12 hours later it was blocked! Don't promote a tool providing China with information on which sites to block.
Magnus - Send them sites that YOU don't like.
special_guest:
I believe (the way I read it) that Robert isn't making a left/right argument, he is calling out a tactic used by the Left and then (within the next sentence) making an analogy. When he says "They", I think he is referring to those trying to silence JW.
I could be wrong, of course, but I think Robert knows that there are liberal thinkers who are able to recognize the dangers as well.
sublimer
*sigh*. Since you can't grasp with reason anything that goes on around here and are instead trawling for words (ummmmm...context?) can you please stop trying to defend that action. That's just embarrssing. What do you have to contribute about the precise of JW and like websites being filtered vs. jihadi websites? Where is your post on those sites condemning hate speech? Please link so we can see your ire...
The term "Hate Speach" is completely manufactured to cercumvent the Freedom of speach laws. It is arbitrally and discriminately applied. A concocted notion to prevent Truth from being known.
The Block is in place now because someone knows the Message is being heard by more people than others would like.
Islam itself is doing more to destroy the Political Correct Ideology than anything. No other Ideology or political counter has ever come close.
The Idea of having all these peaceful Muslims declaring every day how they wish to kill us gets more than old. Being told or controled in such a manor as to prohibit a free society from responding is nothing short of un-constitutional.
Robert has crawled under the skin of someone or some group who obviously "Hate" the message.
Signs of a Job too well done if you ask me.
Ask these people when Jihad Joe will be cencored for "hate Speach"
Forget the server, you are but one voise. Call Talk Radio and see if they can't create a little "free Speach" issue.
"Hate Speach" is just an un-legeslated (un)faireness doctrine. Air the Companys dirty Laundry and expose their current position after all these years as well as all your Publications on the subject.
jihadwatch site:.mil
[PDF]
AMERICA’S CAPITULATION IN THE WAR ON TERROR
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
“What al-Qaida Really Wants”, available from http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/. 007726.php, Internet, accessed 29 November, 2005. ...
www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil463.pdf - Similar pages
[PDF]
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL THESIS
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
15, 2004, from www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000700.php. Brummitt, C. (2005, March 21). Indonesia will outlaw Jemaah Islamiyah. Retrieved on March 21, 2005, ...
stinet.dtic.mil/dticrev/PDFs/ADA435529.pdf - Similar pages
NAVAL
POSTGRADUATE
SCHOOL
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
THESIS
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
ISLAMIC INSURGENCY AND TRANSNATIONAL
TERRORISM IN THAILAND: ANALYSIS AND
RECOMMENDED SOLUTION STRATEGY
by
Jeremiah C. Lumbaca
June 2005
Thesis Advisor: George Lober
Second Reader: Frank Giordano
http://stinet.dtic.mil/dticrev/PDFs/ADA435529.pdf
Reference page 184
Brown, S. (2004, January 21). Thailand Terror. Jihad Watch. Retrieved March
15, 2004, from www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000700.php
www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000700.php
quote
Thailand Terror
Stephen Brown in FrontPage has an excellent summation of recent jihad activity in Thailand:
It is the “weak underbelly” in Southeast Asia’s War on Terror.
That is how one observer has described Thailand’s five Muslim provinces, located in the country’s southern panhandle next to Malaysia, where a bloody outburst of Islamist terrorism has already occurred this year.
..
What makes southern Thailand so attractive to Islamist terrorists and other criminal organizations is the loose security environment. Corrupt officials, the area’s remoteness and a very porous border with neighboring Malaysia provide a natural haven for such lawless groups. It is here where the horrific Bali bombing was planned. It is also in Thailand where its mastermind, Hambali, was arrested, albeit in the country’s northern area. The region’s lax security environment has even allowed about 300 illegal ponoh schools to continue operation, although the government banned them five years ago.
end quote
Business people were killed at Bali. Corruption info is valuable for making investment decisions.
Firms like Kissinger Associates are paid big bucks to do country risk assessment of the above type.
Companies also are under US law not to contribute to corruption. Jihad Watch helps with legal compliance with US law. Jihad Watch promotes shareholder value.
The problem (or advantage, depending on your viewpoint) with this kind of software is that it absolves any responsibility on the part of the site-owning organisation - effectively outsourcing censorship.
This means you end up with plausible deniability for the organisation itself and a kind of privatised censorship (and the means of applying the rules thereof), that is totally opaque and unaccountable. Who polices the 'Policeman'? At least you can vote out governments.
I do see an argument for a company to balance the desire to provide internet access to employees, whilst keeping questionable material out of their network; but JW should never be categorised as such. It might have a 'lively' comments section, but since when was that a crime? Don't you Americans have a Constitution to protect you from this kind of thing?
JW is essentially a political news and education sight with a scholarly bias. It's not kiddie porn or white supremacism.
I wish you luck in your quest contacting the companies Robert, and admire your resolve in trying; but frankly I don't think you'll get very far - which is a crying shame.
I believe that you can also appeal at the sites themselves; so don't forget to try that too. Wishing you the best of luck.
Good afternoon fellow Jihad Watchers,
Here is a letter I just e-mailed to Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and the morning hosts of my favorite local radio station. I encourage you to do the same:
Subject: Un-American censorship against Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch
Hello Sean,
I wanted to fill you in on some censorship that is going on against Robert Spencer's fine informational site, Jihad Watch. It appears several high powered companies, like Bank of America and Fidelity Investments, have blocked access to JW when employees take their breaks. There has been no blocking of CAIR's site or pro Islamic violence sites. This is un-American and against our right to freedom of speech. You can read more if you go here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017237.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017242.php#comments
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017263.php
Anything you could do to get the word out that this is happening would surely be appreciated.
Thanks,
If you'd like to cut and paste my letter, please do so. I think if we could bombard our local radio stations with this information that, like Congress, they will not be able to ignore us and will have to comment on it. Plus, it would make great news to hear that a bunch of angry Jihad Watchers are up in arms.
Forget about MTV. I want my Jihad Watch!!!
Senate references Jihad Watch
http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/091906Report.pdf
Chuck Colson, Al Qaeda and Converts to Islam, Townhall.com, (Apr. 28, 2004), available at
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001759.php.
page 33 of above
jihadwatch site:.gov
DOC]
September 23, 2006 FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education ...
File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060922/wl_sthasia_afp/vaticanpopeislampakistan_060922124129. ["Jihad Watch" comment on this article: "Can you feel the love? ...
training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/ARRPT/Sept%2023,%2006.doc - Supplemental Result - Similar pages
[DOC]
September 20, 2006 FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education ...
File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
Jihad Watch. "Papal Assassin Warns Pope Benedict His 'Life Is In Danger' If He Visits Turkey ... http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2006/09/013201print.html ...
training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/ARRPT/Sept%2020,%2006.doc - Supplemental Result - Similar pages
[PDF]
Emergency Management Related References On-Hand
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Jihad Watch. “Papal Assassin Warns Pope Benedict His ‘Life Is In Danger’ If He ... Accessed at: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2006/09/013201print.html ...
training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/docs/Wayne%20Bibliography.pdf - Similar pages
[PDF]
Untitled
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001759.php. 13. Chuck Colson, Evangelizing for Evil in Our Prisons: Radical Islamists Seek to Turn Criminals into ...
hsgac.senate.gov/_files/091906Report.pdf - Similar pages
Sublimer you want the one way street.....
FORGET IT.
IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
EVER.
Possible draft:
Dear X,
It has come to my attention that Jihad Watch may be blocked at your organization. The US Senate, FEMA, and the US Navy link to the Jihad Watch website. Jihad Watch is regularly accessed by US government, state and local websites (if true).
JW is also accessed by foreign governments, including foreign intelligence services.
Jihad Watch is associated with Front Page Magazine, which features such famous authors as Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, Dick Morris, ...
Jihad Watch brings the best of such leading publications as Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, WSJ, Daily Telegraph and also less well known publications from around the world. JW readers from around the world send in hundreds of suggestions from around the world of important articles in the leading and not so leading publications of countries on every continent. How much do these cost? They are absolutely free.
JW promotes employee safety, shareholder value, and compliance with US law. JW teaches post 9-11 thinking in a post 9-11 world.
A miniseries was made about H. Ross Perot setting up a rescue of 2 employees taken hostage by Iran. JW covers hostage takings, as well as detainment of Westerners including business people in at risk countries. By publicizing the fates of Westerners in at risk countries, JW helps secure their freedom. These could be your colleagues, friends, or family.
JW has helped publicize the cases of
Jill Carroll, (list here). Jill Carroll was
released unharmed. This could be your mother, sister, daughter, niece, aunt, or even grandmother.
JW helps spot danger spots for foreign investment and helps in assessing country risk. Leading corporations pay firms such as Kissinger and Associates major amounts of money for this type of assessment. How much do you pay? Its absolutely free. This promotes shareholder value by avoiding bad investments. To learn this information, your employees would have to scan literally dozens of publications around the world, and in different languages. JW does this for you. What is the cost? Its absolutely free.
JW helps you comply with US law. This includes laws against corruption. JW identifies corruption in many countries. This includes laws against harassment based on sex, sexual preference, or religion. JW hightlights cases from around the world of discrimination on these bases.
JW is the one stop shop for country risk, terrorism risk, compliance with US law, and market risk from the price of oil and war. JW has no close substitutes and is recognized by agencies of the US and foreign governments as providing uniquely valuable information.
How much does all this cost? Its absolutely free. It gets better every day. In fact, you may not only wish to unblock us, but make a contribution. Checks can be made out to ....
Sincerely yours,
XYZ
JW could also pick up endorsements. From 9-11 family organizations, former law enforcement, former DoD, business people, law and business profs, etc.
"Oh who me, I am for human rights, bla, bla, bla" That just sounds so right when your readers are calling to nuke the entire middle east. Can you please explain that discrepancy ?
Posted by: sublimer
subslimer.. we CAN THINK FOR OURSELVES!! We don't need Robert to "inspire" us to wish to see the islamic menace taken care of BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!
YOU guys are doing a VERY fine job at riling us up all on your own - simply by being YOURSELVES and doing the things that you do and saying the things that you say.
Don't blame Robert for merely shedding extra light on the cult of islam. We are here because we were LOOKING for information on this cult wqhich threatens us all and the lives we lead.
It's you moslems who always need a "leader" to think for you and tell you what to do. Which explains bin Laden.
Which explains why all of your countries are corrupt dictatorships.
WE DON'T WANT ISLAM, subslimer!! GET IT IN YOUR HAIRY HEAD!!!
(Along the lines of Isabellathecrusader’s and other comments on this issue.)
If we can pin down and document which Internet filtering companies are blocking conservative leaning web sites while allowing access to left wing sites, demonstrating a political bias, perhaps talk radio and Michelle Malkin could bring that information to a wider audience and let the American people know what’s happening.
It sounds newsworthy to me.
Fairness Doctrine or not, the left may already be making a play to limit the influence of conservative ideas leading up to the coming elections, and if that’s the case, people should be informed.
I think in this case the prejudice is quite clear, only lefty web sites get a pass.
Now as an employer I would not allow my employees to surf Jihad watch or any other web site during working hours and on my, or should I say, a company computer, on break time they can, but only if they bring their own computer and internet access.
The Washington Times
Call it like it is, by Diana West
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070706/EDITORIAL04/107060011/1013/EDITORIAL
(Small Excerpt)
If they read Robert Spencer's jihadwatch.org, the essential daily compendium of jihad and dhimmi news, they might get a clue. But, very ominously, Mr. Spencer's Web site is being blocked by assorted organizations which, according to his readers, continue to provide access to assorted pro-jihad sites. Mr. Spencer reports he's "never received word of so many organizations banning this site all at once." These include the City of Chicago, Bank of America, Fidelity Investments, GE IT, JPMorgan Chase, Defense Finance and Accounting Services and now, a federal employee in Dallas informs him, the federal government.
I betcha if you change the name from Jihad watch to Peace Watch or even Brocolli Watch, it will not be blocked. I don't think the filters are looking for content, only certain words.
Freedom of thought, Freedom of expression, Freedom to see things as they are and express those views with the Truth.
As for the Issue of turning the Middle East into Glass. Well, It depends entirely upon them now doesn't it.
The Middle East shows itself as being unwilling to "just get along" in that good old "Multicultural" way.
Being the case it would be unreasonable to expect others from discussing the Options. From Mild to Genoside.
WWII was genoside. Everybody was fair game. Nobody came arround with 3 squares and a Doctor unless you brought them yourself.
The Enemy of today have a big edge on the Tactics of the WWII Kamakazi. He has no need to fly off a ship or some airfield from Far Far away. Today it is much easier to just walk there. Nothing to fancy. The ultimate weapon. Just wait arround for your number to come up, so to speak.
Some of us little Boys and Girls just don't buy Mommy telling us it is just Shadows from the Street Lights any more.
Not sence little Suzzie from down the Street disapeared