Jihad Watch blockage update

Greetings:

JihadWatch: Subverting the Subverters

Hate speech now includes telling the Truth?

I was blocked by Sonic Wall at a local coffee shop. I wrote them but they have not replied.

Here's a good litmus test...see if they're on the up and up, or selectively censoring.

Go check the REAL "hate speech" blogs, like those this site exposes-the ones that really DO preach violence, citing "jihad!" and the usual array of militant lunatic sites that get a free pass, yet their detractors get banned for over far less.

If they're blocked too, it could be an "oversight" (usually the work of some mid-level militant mind who just happens to be working for them and hates JW). Upper-level management will solve that fast.

If not, then we have our answer as to what is considered "hate speech" and what is not...and it would prove obvious that they are pandering to jihadists plain and simple.
It's rather simple...and would put them on notice that, and such groups do NOT like being put under the microscope of scrutiny-especially when shown to show support, overtly OR covertly, for REAL hate groups-and it costs them money, aka business.

Sad to say, I know the silicon valley mindset and they're almost all as bad as the one-sided mentalities at google and others like them.

I hope it's just an "oversight"...we'll soon see.

Surf Control hasn't been a problem for me this week. It was last week though.

I would like to go on record as saying that I find it hard to believe that a website that tells the truth about the Islamofaciest movement could be censored......I would LIKE to; But I CAN'T !!!!!!

But 'jihad' means personal struggle, so how can the word jihad trip these censors?

Do you think some of our troll friends have complained?

The site could be renamed "Personal Struggle Watch."

I AM on record as saying it...and these "net engine"/filters have a long and notorious history of censoring the good guys and giving the bad guys a free pass...
...the only thing different for some is how they do so...
some doing it subtlely,
others make no attempt to hide it.
But they DO censor,sad to say.

Welcome to the wonderful world of political correctness.

No one is listening to me. I can't bloody believe it.

THERE IS NOW IN PLACE A SCHEME WITHIN THE ISLAMIC GLOBAL JIHAD INFRASTRUCTURE A 20 STRATEGY PLOT FOR THE ISLAMIC CONQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES by the year 2020. IT IS REAL AND IT IS HAPPENING RIGHT BEFORE OUR VERY EYES!

Jihad Watch's blockage is almost certainly a part of the Islamic world's grandiose scheme to take over the United States by the year 2020 by dint of Islamic militants' large-scale purchases of US media corporations' stock their and controlling stocks.

If enough Islamic militants purchase enough shares of US media corporate stocks and their controlling stocks these people will attain sufficient leverage within these media companies to take serious actions against Jihad Watch.

Furthermore, ANOTHER of Islam's 20 Strategies to take over the United States is to eliminate America's Freedom of Speech and replace it with hate crime bills nationwide. If Jihad Watch has been classified as "hate speech," then Islam has already succeeded in its conquest of America on two fronts.

I am 100% CERTAIN THAT IS WHAT IS GOING ON HERE.

In order to put a stop to this sort of nonsense we are going to have to hire professionals to investigate this situation thoroughly and take proper legal action to reverse it (that is if we still can).

Believe me (somebody), this blockage of Jihad Watch is only the beginning of what Islam has in store for Americans...

****************************
****************************

CAIR REP RESPONDS!

Hey AFFAD is talking about "Irritating Spencer"! hahahha why dont we all go and comment on his website abit!

http://affadshaikh.blogspot.com/2007/09/irritating-spencer.html

****************************
****************************

I believe you, pythagoras, and your post gave me chills. The scenario you just described sounds completely plausible. I realize that agreeing with you is not enough -- that this requires effective action.

I want to do something, but I'm in no position to hire professionals, etc, who can look into this further.

You are definitely onto something though!

Pythagoras,
True...you're right...but it's not new-it's been going on for decades.
Yes...some are on it (like the PortsWorld deal, et. al.), and have proven effective against it.

Press...well, only FoxNews did they meet resistance, and were forced into a minority stake, and a non-voice. The others cannot claim that distinction as their heads are so far up the islamists fanny, it's FUBAR-but they're also losing their shirts as their tanked ratings show.

(case in point, Bill O'Reilly-like him or hate him, 90% of the time he pulls more ratings in a single 1 hour show than ALL of MSNBC does in it's entire 4-5 hours of primetime...he also pulled far more ratings than the Democratic Presidential debate running same time...a testament to people rejecting the anti-western vitriol-REAL hate doesn't sell, people know what REAL hate is, and ratings is everything on TV)

2020?...nope, not gonna happen. The attempt is true, but the timeline is unrealistic-too many are onto them and their infestation tactics.
Then there's the one thing they fear most, and will never control...the 81% documented populace who hate their guts, and possess the one thing they fear most:
the ability, and willingness, to shoot back at them. Believe me, when you have a country with way more weapons than people,it's a HUGE influencing and convincing force.

Even IF they suddenly tried to infest enough to where if WE said "enough!" and they pulled an oil embargo (yes, I suspect they will do just that), they will break first.
Our SPR will last us 75 days even at current rate (it will actually be much longer as we'll declare an oil emergency, and curtail all nonessential functions for the time...best guess: 125 days)...
...their sustainability without oil income is less than 3 weeks, 21 days. Obvious who breaks first, and even Russia/China machine, aka, the SCO can't do a damned thing about it either, even if they bought every last drop of oil the islamists have (that would only postpone their doom by another 3-5 weeks, totalling 42-56 days...still short, much like the Battle of the Bulge was about fuel and endurance.
Yes, scenarios are run like this every day...and they are continually tweaked and refined for best effect.
The islamists know this...they tried when we didn't have SPR in the 70's...now we DO have one, and that is their achilles heel...and they know it's also their expedient demise if they ever try it again.

Yes...they ARE trying
No...they won't succeed
The only question is the damage factor involved if, and when, they do.

The situation here shows why we need a strong public interest law firm to fight this. Young people who want to make a difference might think about this as a future.

A few young lawyers or even a couple old ones who can found such a firm and build it up can make a difference.

There are public interest law firms on the other side fighting us. We need people to get active and fight back.

Foehammer has an excellent piece “Belgian journalist uncovers true nature of islam” in Belgium’s little morocco posted today. For any people out there who are still wondering what the truth is, lets just say you won’t find a Ricks Café Americain in that place.

What I really object to is the idea that an obscure company - about which I know little or nothing - can define what is 'hate speech' and then prevent me from viewing it.

What is even more despicable is the implication that if I read a particular blog I am a racist, Islamophobe and so on.

It really is a sad world when some computer nerds in rural England can act as judge and jury on what is morally acceptable reading material.

This is the modern Islam strategy to preclude it's true colors being shown & known. Here's the recipe:

1) Voluntary self-censorship by businesses out of fear of taking a pounding in the mainstream media with resultant lost profits.

2) Almost all high technology managers are Marxists (i.e., secular humanist liberal Democrats) who in the first place are prone to self-censorhip on behalf of multiculturalism, secular humanism, and self-loathing.

3) Very real dangers presented by the 6th Pillar of Islam to company workers, mangers, and investors.

I was shocked when I tried to log on to Jihad Watch from a large bakery chain last week and was blocked. The message sited "Hate Speech" as the reason I could not access Jihad Watch. Below is my reply to the company. I wasn't going to complain until I saw this article and it dawned on me that I was denied my freedom. I think a huge outcry from women and minorities should point out the hypocrisies we are facing today. If I don't get the response I am looking for, I personally won't spend another dime at this up and coming business.

"Recently I used your wireless internet service at one of your cafes. I was alarmed by the fact that I was blocked from the web site http://www.jihadwatch.org/ and your server sited hate speech as the reason.
This web-site is not a hate based site, but rather references news articles from all over the world as it relates to women and minorities being degraded, denied human rights and the violence directed at them by Islamists. I am certain that you would not wish to deny your patrons the ability to access real news stories, especially those stories that expose the atrocities perpetrated against women and minorities. Please notify me when this oversight has been handled appropriately."

We have that all the time out in Silicon Valley where they're downright nasty about it (and most are located),
-act as judge, jury, even executioner, -backed up by their cohorts in such notable de facto dictators as the 9th circuit court of appeals centered in nearby san francisco
-(which also have a notorious record of being overturned by the US Supreme Court for being so outrageous),
-and in turn backed up by elected officials like henry "refuse to convict no matter what" waxman (fanatical supporter of the oxymoronic "fairness doctrine") & their ilk, who scream "foul!" at the drop of the hat the moment their allies don't get their way...

...the list is endless, and entrenched as hell...

...so when ya have that kind of power (read that as "racket")backing you up, you can pretty much get away with anything, until the entire populace rises up and says "NO!" to this REAL "big brother" de facto censorship that constantly attacks those who dare expose evil for what it is.

Robert Spencer requested we write polite letters to several companies, including SurfControl. I did so. Nowhere in the letter I sent to SurfControl did I say or suggest that SurfControl maliciously attacks or smears specific sites, but this is the response letter I got from SurfControl:

Dear Mr. Lewis,

It is up to a company’s IT dept. to set the rules and policies for Internet access if you are trying to access this site from a work environment. Our technology is set to recognize words such as “Jihad” as having a reputation for being associated with terrorist and hate sites. Out Web filter technology does not maliciously attack or smear specific sites, but, instead will block any site that contains the word “jihad.”

If you are personally blocked from accessing this site, please contact your IT dept for additional information.

Regards,

Michelle A. Fleschute

Corporate Communications

SurfControl

The above email response from SurfControl, if accurate, means that Robert Spencer should be asking us to send polite letters not to the web filtering companies (or not just to them) but to the companies that use the web filter software and are letting Jihad Watch be blocked.

Here's another polite letter (yet again revised) I just sent to five people at Barracuda Networks:

September 6, 2007

Barracuda Networks

Re: Barracuda Networks' block on New York Times bestselling author Robert Spencer's website Jihad Watch

To President Brian A. Reed and others at Barracuda Networks:

It has come to my attention recently that Barracuda Networks' screening software has blocked Robert Spencer's website, www.jihadwatch.com, from a number of workplaces and other internet venues.

At http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/ , one can find that Robert Spencer's articles on Islam and other topics "have appeared in the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, Canada's National Post, Middle East Quarterly, FrontPageMagazine.com, WorldNet Daily, Insight in the News, Human Events, National Review Online, and many other journals. He has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the Untied States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, a Department of Homeland Security task force, and branches of the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Also, he has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He has also appeared on the BBC, CNN, FoxNews, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, C-Span, France24 and Croatia National Television (HTV), as well as on numerous radio programs including Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor, The Laura Ingraham Show, Bill Bennett's Morning in America, Michael Savage's Savage Nation, The Sean Hannity Show, The Alan Colmes Show, the G.Gordon Liddy Show, The Neal Boortz Show, The Michael Medved Show, The Michael Reagan Show, The Rusty Humphries Show, The Larry Elder Show, the Barbara Simpson Show, Vatican Radio, and many others."

If Robert Spencer is good enough for all those mainstream national venues, and is the author of two New York Times bestsellers, why is he being blocked by Barracuda Networks? According to some reports, the reason for Barracuda's ban of Robert Spencer's website, www.jihadwatch.com , is that it was designated a "hate" site or something similar. But Spencer's website is no sense a "hate" site. Barracuda will find it impossible to locate a single statement by Robert Spencer himself that can be designated a "hate" statement or anything similar. Spencer writes about jihad, and as a result he is sometimes accused of "bigotry" or "hate" by malicious persons who seek to squelch free speech, though Spencer has not a racist bone in his body, and jihad is carried out by persons of every race. Jihad is based on ideology, not race. Spencer, who has been studying Islam for decades, is an expert on Islamic theology, law, doctrine, and history. He discusses on his site the theological roots of jihad and related subjects.

I should note that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), designated by the U.S. government as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror trial, has employed a smear article against Robert Spencer and his website, in an effort to silence him. Notably, the article was written by a convicted felon named "Rev." Jim Sutter, who sometimes goes by other names, was ordained by mail order, claims to have degrees and honors (including the Navy Cross) that he has not received, relishes using libel, and pretends he cares about stopping bigotry and hate. Spencer reports that Pastor Ernie Sanders, one of Sutter's former associates, says that "Sutter is mentally ill, and has cooked up lies about many, many people. He is, said Pastor Ernie, a danger to himself and others." See, for example

http://www.exposingsutter.blogspot.com/2007/08/robert-spencer-on-pastor-ernies-show.html

and

http://www.exposingsutter.blogspot.com/2007/07/is-credit-card-fraud-only-religious.html

and

http://www.exposingsutter.blogspot.com/2007/04/rev-who-is-fraud.html

Robert Spencer is widely respected by numerous mainstream media figures who, like Spencer himself, strongly and utterly repudiate racism, bigotry, and hate. I would therefore urge Barracuda Networks to lift its ban of Robert Spencer's website www.jihadwatch.com. Thanks very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, Traeh Lewis (NY)

Robert Spencer said:

I doubt that the companies that have banned it really want to be on record as approving of jihad violence, the forcible subjugation of religious minorities and the denial to them of equality of rights, the commodification of women, and the other elements of Islamic supremacism that we are working against here.

To point that out is to go on the offensive, which may be what is needed. I don't know if Spencer is interested in lawsuits, but at least people and websites could spread bad publicity about the blocking companies if they refuse to unblock Spencer's site. By "bad publicity", I mean that such companies could be tarred as supporters of the list of evils Spencer enumerates in the quote.

Just heard from Lady Predator. Her site is also blocked, as well as her site exposing the phony preacher.

Tried to post at Foehammer's. It worked earlier - not now:(

OK, this is getting weird. SurfControl doesn't seem to know what it is doing. Here's what they wrote to me today, with my letter to them below. BTW, I DID go on the offensive. Great strategy, learned from the Religion of Peace: make a huge fuss and claim great offence and insult...

"Dear ...,

Thank you for your concern and for taking the time to bring this to our attention. As of the end of last month, jihadwatch.org had been corrected and placed into our Blogs & Forums category. If this doesn't reflect in the version you are currently using, please ensure that the lastest version of our database (v. 1822) has been downloaded. This should correct the issue.

If there are any further concerns, please don't hesitate to let us know.

Sincere Regards,
Sheila
Threat Analysis & Research"

My letter:

"Subject: Incorrect site removal

Dear Surf Control

The site jihadwatch.org has been removed by your service under false accusations of promoting violence, racism and/or hate. Jihadwatch simply traces the activities of violent jihadists – in other words the site works AGAINST violence, racism and hate. All people suffer from violent jihadists – including muslims.

Currently your service must be on record as approving of jihad violence, the forcible subjugation of religious minorities and the denial to them of equality of rights, the commodification of women, and the other elements of Islamic supremacism that Jihadwatch works against.

Please confirm that Jihadwatch has been properly assessed and the site re-instated as a valid political site.

Regards, "

From the letter Traeh received above:

Our technology is set to recognize words such as “Jihad” as having a reputation for being associated with terrorist and hate sites. Out Web filter technology does not maliciously attack or smear specific sites, but, instead will block any site that contains the word “jihad.”

While one may question the methodology the designers of the above filters used in coming up with their filter list, it's a perfectly legitimate move for them to make, since writing sophisticated web filters that looks for other criteria on a site named 'Jihad' may not only be too complicated, but would also by no means be fool-proof. For us humans, we can distinguish pro-Jihad sites from anti-Jihad sites, but how exactly can web filters be expected to pull that off? The way they did it above - look for the word 'Jihad' in the name, and put them in the blender. And their above quote - 'Our technology is set to recognize words such as “Jihad” as having a reputation for being associated with terrorist and hate sites.' - is perfectly accurate. If they are - following on that logic - automatically blocking any site that has 'Jihad' - why blame them?

My suggestion - despite the great brand name JihadWatch has earned, consider a new name if you don't want to be randomly blocked.

Tried to log in to Jihadwatch on my HOME computer today. Was denied by my own virus/spam software that is provided by my ISP and updated when I log on. Apparently they added something because I never before was denied in my OWN HOME to access this site. I had to add Jihadwatch to the allowed sites list in order to access it. Charter Cable is apparently looking out for me, suuuure. Thanks but no thanks and thank goodness I was able to allow Jihadwatch on the 'allowed' list for myself.

It would appear that the banning is automatic, flagged by a keyword on a list. (Though I wonder, if so, and it was not someone's conscious decision, why didn't it happen sooner?)

I was blocked briefly two weeks ago. I contacted my own organization's IT dept., then talked to our head honcho, who gave the go-ahead to lift the ban.

Does CAIR (for example) have a website, I wonder, and is it blocked by these companies?

The 1389 blog is doing a great job of covering the web filtering issue

http://1389blog.com/2007/09/07/see-for-yourself-that-content-filtering-is-nothing-more-than-privatized-censorship/

In a few blog entries, the word t*a*r*b*a*b*y is used to describe the US situation in Iraq.

That word is often used as a racial slur and may be part of the reason why the site is being blocked.

A sports site I frequent was blocked by Websense last year because of references to South Carolina's Gamec0cks. At the time, USC was scheduled to play Arkansas, whose starting QB was named Casey D!ck.

A whole thread began parodying headlines of starting D!ck against the C0cks, and it took weeks to get the site unblocked because of it.