I have often wondered why I have never noticed posts from people who mention that they live in either the West Indies or south Saharan Africa. Although it is quite possible that any UK (or Canadian, US, NZ or Australian) poster orginated from those countries.

Slightly OT, is that big billboard still up on the Californian motorway? That attracted a lot of new readers as I recall.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 11, 2006 8:24 AM

yes the sitemeter, over 20,000 hits a day and rising. They can fool some of the people some of the time, fraud and falsehood dread examination, truth invites it... The jihad mentality does'nt stand a chance.

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at June 11, 2006 9:02 AM

Is it really wise to give out all the IP addresses of everyone who visits this site?

Posted by: Sneaky at June 11, 2006 9:03 AM

Esmay's swollen ego should get the blame and/or credit. That buffoon recklessly claimed he had a lot more traffic. Only then did you put in the site-meter

Posted by: dennisw at June 11, 2006 10:34 AM

Are the IP addresses being given out?
Hope not!
Anyway,,I was pleased to see "my dot" location there. Proud of it:))

Posted by: Gramfan at June 11, 2006 10:35 AM

ROBERT:

When one does a google search for the word "jihad" you are always the number one result or just shy of it. I say many truth seekers get their first useful information on Jihad right here.

Google ranking is one reason you get visitors from all over.

Allahpundit had the same thing going. He was the first hit for "allah". Must have driven many Muhammadans bonkers. AP has returned at the hotair website with Michelle Malkin.

Posted by: dennisw at June 11, 2006 10:40 AM

I do my part in and ad-hoc way. Long ago I had cards printed with "find out the truth about Islam" and "Is Islam a religion of peace?". They are left at airports and subways, and heck even at the Opera. On the reverse is visit Jihadwatch. with web address.

I would suggest that it's an excellent way to get the message out.

Try you own variations.

Bravo too the Internet Crusade. and the diverse anti-Jihad membership!

Good work Robert & Hugh from your humble servant El Cid and clan.

Very large clan..... spread out across the four corners of the earth. Strong supporters of the 2nd amendment!

Posted by: El Cid at June 11, 2006 10:53 AM

Is it really wise to give out all the IP addresses of everyone who visits this site?

The last octet isn't quoted. Besides, how many visitors will be using a static IP address?

Posted by: El Cid at June 11, 2006 10:54 AM

Would the 20,000 be unique visitors?
If so that is good news.
However I will feel a lot better when the figure is 200,000 worldwide 20,000 US.

Posted by: tgusa at June 11, 2006 11:04 AM

I see I made the list, Go Tampa, lol. Since americaningermany brought up Gitmo, by killing themselves the poor muslims are doomed to hell, muslims are not supposed to do that, tsk, tsk. I'm sure they rest of them will go nuts over it, the libs will demand Gitmo be closed and we will have to hear about this for weeks. I think we should all start a collection and send Gitmo short ropes, why ruin sheets?

Hmmm, after reading that it sounds like I don't like muslims and could be wrongly accused of being islamaphobic, so to clear it up for everyone, I meant it only in a good way.

It seems a fast death means more than living under infidel care for the rest of their lives. After bravely attacking women and children from ambush (and getting caught) the brave warriors of allah are scared of 8x8 cells, tsk, tsk. I am sure it is our fault, the cells needed more illumination but who knew mujahids were afraid of the dark? I have little compassion for those murderers, I do feel sorry for the guards. For years they have had to endure allahs brave soldiers crying all night for their mommies.

Posted by: Ronin at June 11, 2006 11:26 AM

I noticed some .mil and .gov hits. This is good. I hope they are learning the facts about the enemy, not what they wish the facts to be.

Posted by: Sheik er' Bouti at June 11, 2006 11:27 AM

Robert, this is an EXTREMELY BAD IDEA!!! This thing shows anyone who cares to look just exactly where your visitors are located, the page they were looking at before hitting your site, their service provider and their IP number, along with a whole bunch of other stuff.

Anybody with a half a clue about tracking people online could come up with a complete list of names & addresses of everyone who visits this site in a heartbeat.

EXAMPLE -

Domain Name adelphia.net ? (Network)
IP Address 24.53.120.# (Adelphia)
ISP Adelphia
Location
Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : Maine
City : Hollis Center
Lat/Long : 43.6305, -70.6181 (Map)
Language English (United States)
en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor
Resolution : 1280 x 800
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Jun 11 2006 11:23:31 am
Last Page View Jun 11 2006 11:23:31 am
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page http://www.jihadwatch.org/
Visit Exit Page http://www.jihadwatch.org/
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Jun 11 2006 11:23:31 am
Visit Number 276,386

In your zeal to track a harrasser or two you have laid every single one of us wide open to exactly the same and worse. This is REALLY LOUSY judgement on your part and a gross violation of our privacy - not to mention our safety.

Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 11, 2006 11:30 AM

"The last octet isn't quoted. Besides, how many visitors will be using a static IP address?"

Those navigating to the site from work will more often than not have static IP's.

Posted by: Sheik er' Bouti at June 11, 2006 11:30 AM

I found this site during the cartoon madness and I have since then been a regular visitor. I was shocked to see Finnish Prime Minister Matti "Dhimmi" Vanhanen apologise for the publication of Jyllands Posten cartoons on a Finnish website suomensisu.org. That was the turning point for me and ever since I have tried to increase my knowledge about islam and jihad.

I am continuously impressed by the logic of the arguments presented by both Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald. I sincerely believe that they represent the side of the story that is constantly ignored by the mainstream media.

Posted by: Saatanan Islam at June 11, 2006 11:32 AM

In your zeal to track a harrasser or two you have laid every single one of us wide open to exactly the same and worse. This is REALLY LOUSY judgement on your part and a gross violation of our privacy - not to mention our safety.

Posted by: gallopinggranny

No worries Granny, most of us are ready for visitors. I'd love to sit down for coffee with allahs brave soldiers. Maybe, I could convert them and welcome them to the human race.

Posted by: Ronin at June 11, 2006 11:37 AM

Ronin: "No worries Granny, most of us are ready for visitors."

But no doubt there are posters here from countries where their security could be a real issue. I noticed this little site meter on my work computer at least a week ago and scanned through the info available and had the same concerns as gallopinggranny.

And what does it mean "Besides, how many visitors will be using a static IP address?"

Do you think everyone here is that computer savvy? How do you get a "non-static" IP address? I don't even know what you are talking about! Maybe I'm not alone.

Posted by: Caroline at June 11, 2006 11:50 AM

GallopingGranny: Note that the last set of digits in the IP address (24.53.120.#) are omitted; that prevents identifying a unique user.

I can see my city in the "Who's On" section as well, but no one knows whether that one, or that, one, or that one is mine, yours, or someone else's.

So, I'm not worried.

Posted by: Shinoliite at June 11, 2006 11:56 AM

Caroline-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_IP_address#Dynamic_and_static_IP_addresses

Posted by: Shinoliite at June 11, 2006 12:00 PM

Caroline, not because of crazed musims just because the world is the way it is everyone should have security software on their home systems. It doesn’t have to be expensive, you should get one that has both an anti virus and a privacy filter. Robert is tracking site visitors, the tracer can not trace you all the way to your address, just to the IP (partial) used and the geographic locations. If you have muslims near you, you are all ready at risk but how many are ready to attack us at our homes?

Posted by: Ronin at June 11, 2006 12:05 PM

gallopinggranny you should not worry, its not like they have your street address. they are more after Robert than any othesr people.l dont want to sound too religious but l do pray for his safety.
the last Muslim that came to my place, he got freaked out with my dogs, (he was furnace man the insurance people sent over) and once my mother had her fridge for sale in the paper, and some muslim couple came here to buy it, his wife wanted it, but hubby saw we had some dogs in the house and left in a huff, soon after some lovely Mennonite couple came and bought it.
and going back to El Cid idea of making cards with www.jihadwatch.org , great idea! we just need to spread the truth of islma, no need to try to convert the muslims, they need to find their own way when they are ever ready or dead.

Posted by: Lulu at June 11, 2006 12:17 PM

Shinoliite - thanks for that info.

Ronin - My concern was for posters who might live in Muslim majority countries where locals might well have some interest in narrowing down their actual locations were it possible to do so (I am thinking of at least one or two posters who have identified themselves as Muslim apostates). Also, a number of posters here have idenitified the cities they live in so its not that hard to put 2 and 2 together there when you can see who is online. But I am satisfied that without the final digits in the IP address, specific address tracking is impossible to do.

Posted by: Caroline at June 11, 2006 12:23 PM

Caroline,
Hypothetical IP.
Server X needs to be found by anyone anywhere anytime. They are assigned a static or never changing IP address such as 1.1.1.1 , a dynamic IP comes from a range or pool of addresses assigned to Company Y, such as 131.107.292.100 to 131.108.292.100, in this case the provider has 1,000,000 addresses available to assign. Every time you connect/disconnect you are assigned a different IP in that range. Company Y needing to be found to assign those dynamic IPs will need a static IP.

Posted by: tgusa at June 11, 2006 12:33 PM

I should have added that I do think it was important to clarify this (whether address tracking was possible from the IP info provided) in the initial post because this was unclear to me (being completely computer un-savvy) when I first read the site meter (I kept posting anyway for the reasons Lulu points out) but this also could have been unclear to many other prospective readers and/or posters and we don't want people needlessly frightened off from reading or posting here - especially those living in places who may have real reasons to fear for their personal security.

Posted by: Caroline at June 11, 2006 12:40 PM

tgusa - well then, it's all very clear to me now. NOT!:-)

But I'll take your word for it. As I said, I think it was an important thing to clarify for the reasons I stated above.

So thanks to everyone who has clarified this for the un-computer savvy among us.

Posted by: Caroline at June 11, 2006 12:46 PM

Caroline,
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1450

Posted by: tgusa at June 11, 2006 12:57 PM

I know I only speak for myself here, but I accept a certain amount of physical risk for speaking freely about Islam.

If not now, when? If this small risk is not acceptible, our cowardice will allow our enemy to dominate us. To solve the problem of Jihad will require some struggle.

Posted by: Quijybo at June 11, 2006 1:08 PM

Good to know the message is getting out, but not enough. I still read supposedly conservative writers and those bringing attention to the Jihadist Ideology still using nonsensical euphemisms such as "war on terror", "lack of imagination" and "radical Islam."

Long way to go with our lack of EDUCATION. As far as naming the enemy, and falling back on "dialogue" instead of action we still have a long way to go.

This site leads the net as far as I am concerned in getting the facts and message out.

Posted by: amana39 at June 11, 2006 1:13 PM

The last octet isn't quoted. Besides, how many visitors will be using a static IP address?

I don't really like having so much personal information displayed in public, out of principle. Might consider using a proxy for Firefox, from now on.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at June 11, 2006 1:17 PM

"I believe static IPs are pretty common."

Are static IP's more common for businesses? What if someone is reading/posting from a small 5-10 person business in say Iran or Turkey or Oman with a static IP address? Is it possible to trace directly to that business (as Charles Johnson did to Reuters)?

Posted by: Caroline at June 11, 2006 1:42 PM

Everyone,

My heartfelt apologies. I was not aware all this info was available, and am working on getting the problem fixed. If I can't, I will take down the Sitemeter.

Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at June 11, 2006 1:47 PM

"In your zeal to track a harrasser or two you have laid every single one of us wide open to exactly the same and worse. This is REALLY LOUSY judgement on your part and a gross violation of our privacy - not to mention our safety."

Apparently, Robert doesn't think the threat of Islamic Jihad is quite so bad that our safety is put at risk by this public information about us. It's an unsettling irony that Robert on the one hand provides us with a daily flood of alarming information & analyses about the dangers of Jihad (which includes individual Muslims taking Jihad into their own hands to kill anyone they think is against Islam), but on the other hand installs this Meter without having the decency of asking us first nor, judging from his previous nonresponsiveness to questions and intelligent criticisms from readers of JW, without the decency of responding to the concerns of some of us and maybe -- gasp! horrors! -- actually holding a vote or referendum among us or -- heavens! -- an actual discussion with us (a real discussion, not a dashed-off note from on high notifying us of his unchanged mind) on the matter. Robert apparently values his readers enough to use their statistical presence, but not enough to address their concerns about that presence.

Posted by: Television at June 11, 2006 2:03 PM

DUDE just gave us his apologies.He evan said he would take it off,if he couldnt fix it.

Posted by: patriot4 at June 11, 2006 2:08 PM

Am I the only one that had to shut down all security settings just to view the meter?
Kill it.

Posted by: tgusa at June 11, 2006 2:13 PM

Reference Lulu's post. I was aware that Muslims were not fond of dogs, but how do they feel about cats?

Posted by: Greg at June 11, 2006 2:24 PM

Give Robert time. I am quite sure the site meter can be configured to only give the information he hoped to present, while protecting Our end of the deal.

Posted by: Gary at June 11, 2006 2:38 PM

Re the site meter - something I don't get is the number of visits which sum to 0 seconds. How does one visit a site for 0 seconds?

Also - in the overall summary stats, the average visit length is 1 minute. I spend so many hours here I'm surprised I didn't cause a 1 second average increase in the visit length all by my lonesome. But if the average visit length really is 1 minute - what are people taking away? How could the average visitor spend only 1 minute reading all this info daily?

I don't get this site meter thingy.

Posted by: Caroline at June 11, 2006 2:38 PM

You forgot to add something at the end of your post, when you rightly observed that "They are watching us, and we are watching them." And that is, that "we aim to destroy them."

We won't be content until we have thoroughly annihlated them, and wiped their very memory from the pages of history.

Posted by: Dan at June 11, 2006 2:39 PM

Television,

The juxtaposition of your post right below mine is ironic.

I had no idea these elements of Sitemeter existed when I signed up.

I should have checked. I apologize.

I have emailed the Sitemeter webmaster asking that this material be hidden or, if that cannot be done, that the Sitemeter be taken off this site immediately. I haven't heard back from him yet.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at June 11, 2006 2:41 PM

Anyway,

It's gone. Finito. Apology added as an update to the original post.

I would have done it sooner but I was out all morning.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at June 11, 2006 2:51 PM

No problem Robert,I trust ya.

Posted by: patriot4 at June 11, 2006 2:56 PM

Thank you for making my day Robert.

God Bless.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 11, 2006 2:58 PM

"Apology added as an update to the original post".

Well just out of curiosity - how "personal" WAS that information? Because according to some here, it wasn't all that personal while according to others, it was (and it was up there for at least a week).

Kurtz - when you say you check out the IP addressess all the time - do you mean truncated or full IP addresses?

And, um, what's a "webmaster" and could you clarify whether any "webmaster" has access to full IP info, traceable to someone's personal address?

(It's been my general experience that if I don't know something, at least one other person doesn't either. Which makes me unafraid to ask "the stupid question").

Posted by: Caroline at June 11, 2006 3:02 PM

sorry Mr Spencer - I read too quicky but I see that you did clarify your understanding about the partial IP info making it impossible to trace to a specific name and address. I am still curious about the "static IP" traceability to specific businesses or companies though (as Johnson traced to Reuters), as several posters here seemed to raise that concern.

Posted by: Caroline at June 11, 2006 3:08 PM

Caroline,

I get full IP's in the internal system. This is not public information, and it never will be. I have no idea about their traceability, as I never have and never will trace one. But I don't think anything can be done with a partial IP.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at June 11, 2006 3:13 PM

"I get full IP's in the internal system. This is not public information, and it never will be"

Mr Spencer - yes I figured you had access to that information and obviously have no concerns whatsoever there.

Kurtz - oh OK. I get your meaning now. I mistakenly thought you meant you somehow had access to the IP info of Mr Spencer's posters.

Posted by: Caroline at June 11, 2006 3:25 PM

americaningermany writes: "I have no idea why those Muslims being held at Guantanimo have not yet been tried. There must be a reason why it has taken so long, I just don't know enough about it."

I don't know about these three particular detainees. But there have been many problems with President Bush's original plan to have al-Qaeda terrorists tried by military tribunals instead of civilian courts. The procedures and rules of evidence for those proposed tribunals were drawn up in haste after 9-11. And from what I saw of them, they weren't firmly based on any existing legal tradition but read like some high-school student making up a term paper the night before it was due.

Then those procedures were sharply criticized by Human Rights Watch and by the military counsels for some of the detainees, and the Bush Administration asked for revisions. This fluctuating set of poorly thought-out procedures, has enabled military counsel for the defense to make a good case that the detainees' rights are being violated and they can't get a fair trial.

On top of that, human rights activists have gone to court to stop Bush from using military tribunals at all, claiming that he needed to have authority from Congress rather than enacting them by Executive Order. This has caused yet more delays--if the Supreme Court rules that Bush can't use military tribunals, the detainees would have to be tried in civilian courts. But they have been detained so long that habeas corpus could get them set free. Bush cannot waive habeas corpus without an act of Congress, and this has to be done for each detainee on a case by case basis individually, not on a blanket basis

After this mess, it is conceivable that if the detainees ever went to trial, they could actually be acquitted on the basis that their rights have already been violated.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 11, 2006 3:46 PM

Caroline,

Adding to what Kurtz said, here is a very good link for general on-line security matters and some pertinent information for the likes of us who are in the Anti-Jihad business.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2192

Posted by: William The Crusader at June 11, 2006 3:48 PM

I ain't scared....We got men and women with crappy rules of engagement over there fighting for us !!! The least we can do is keep our keyboards firmly pointed at the jihadies and the mullahs

Posted by: Snapperhead at June 11, 2006 4:22 PM

Caroline:

... could you clarify whether any "webmaster" has access to full IP info.

Of necessity the server must get your IP address when you request a page (by clicking a bookmark or link in your browser). Otherwise, how would it know where to send a page? The internet gives a false impression of anonymity.

Think of your IP address as being like a mailbox at your gate. If you were to ask Robert to send you a letter, he'd have to know the address of your mailbox to post it to you. It's the same with digital information - which is all a webpage is.

The only way to get around this is to go via someone else's servers - someone such as Anonymizer:

http://www.anonymizer.com/

In the normal way of things, it isn't a worry. But I suppose one might want to think twice before visiting some sites and allowing them to have any information at all.

It might also be something for people in non-democratic countries to think about. All your requests for pages go via your internet service provider, so they will also have a record of everywhere you've been. Storage space costs money, so they probably won't keep them very long. However, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the security services could take a look at those records. (The police would do that in the US if they had reason to believe you were using your internet account to, for example, commit fraud online.)

In the normal way of things, it probably isn't worth the effort just to silence the odd critic. However, if one were, for example, posting from Pakistan and the situation there became even worse and even more hysterical than it already is one might want to think twice about posting here, or even visiting, as I hope an annoying but fundamentally harmless occasional poster here realizes.

Posted by: Yojimbo at June 11, 2006 4:30 PM

With out the last octet it is lost in a range between 0 and 255. And some of that range are reserved for hardware and broadcasts

Posted by: Snapperhead at June 11, 2006 4:40 PM

Without being the slightest bit cynical, what better example of the wonderful capabilities of the West, the inventions of the West, and the vulnerabilities of the West this entire incident has been. Even Mr. Spencer's preliminary non-recognition of the dangers, and his awakening to them through warnings, and his efforts to correct is instructive.

My inclination at first was to suggest he remove this thread altogether, or perhaps start anew with a fresh one untainted by the innocent but potentially dangerous error or the subsequent apology. I thought, 'What kind of welcome is it where a mistake is made and apologies and corrections must then be made?' and 'Will it be harmful for readers to fear accessing this site, or posting at this site?'

But upon reflection, I think it's best for all to see -- openly and without remorse. The mistake made was one of ignorance of consequences, and naivete, and a wish to welcome like minded kin. How like the welcoming of Islam into our domain? How like the unsuspecting masses, and unwitting leadership who permitted it to happen. How shocking to find out that one's actions may have permitted those intending harm to cause damage, to exploit, to potentially destroy.

It's all there in microcosm. Beautiful. Wonderful. Frightening. Necessary.

Posted by: jsla at June 11, 2006 4:59 PM

255 That’s right,
My mistake, it should have read 131.107.192.100
255 being the reason for dynamic IP. There just aren’t enough addresses to go around.
I checked my self out on the meter and well, wrong city. It is nice to see it gone though so,
Thanks Mr. Spencer.

Posted by: tgusa at June 11, 2006 5:01 PM

William the Crusader et al -

Thanks to everyone who has provided technical information about this. The truth is, that there are 4 things in this world that absolutely make my eyes glaze over

1.astronomy
2.basketball
3.cars
4.computers

My poor husband (interested in all 4) has learned to live with it. (Thankfully there are at least 100 other topics of mutual interest). He spends so many hours "firewalling" or whatever you call it - our computer, that I am not very concerned. He has tried to explain it all to me as well but that being one of those 4 topics that make my eyes glaze over, he's given up and thankfully just takes care of it.:-).

But as I indicated earlier, I'm not that concerned about my specific safety - I started perusing the site meter a week ago and could locate my own info (I had no idea whether you could trace my address cause I'm so computer un-savvy and forgot to ask my husband about it.). But I would be surpised if no one else here had stumbled across the thing before today. It was a little box right there that was hard to miss. But as Lulu noted, those of us posting from the free west are smallfry - not important enough to chase down (aside from the site's operators).

But I don't know if that is the case for everyone and I doubt that 100% of the readers/prospective posters would necessarily feel so cavalier.

Look at the list of countries in the original post. It's still not clear to me whether or not static IP addresses were actually traceable to a particular company. And I don't know the personal circumstances of everyone reading or posting here. Neither do I think that every one of them is computer-savvy enough to bother to read or grasp all this computer tech stuff about firewalls and un-static IP addresses" and so on.

Many people might just take one glance at the site meter and think to themselves, upon seeing what IP info it did show, "Eek! Out of here!

I think it was important for the site to address the issue of traceability of the information provided. And even if it isn’t traceable, to still weigh the gains of having the sitemeter against the visceral feelings of readers/posters here, many of whom are no doubt alot like me - not very computer savvy (but perhaps not as fortunate to have someone else there to take care of it all).

It would have been a real shame if cause for celebration – "Look at how many readers are reading the site worldwide! - had ironically caused a whole lot of the lights to suddenly go out.

In any case, one can find useful general site stats at alexa.com.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=jihadwatch.org

Posted by: Caroline at June 11, 2006 5:02 PM

I often post while on break from work. I am on a network in a large public school system in the Southern USA (for you Brits, in the US a "Public" school is a government school). Anyway, because there are teens and children on the network, it is highly filtered.

Well teenagers are usually smarter about these things than us geezers. I caught a student on a forbidden site. It wasn't anything offensive or sexual but just a teenage chatroom. All chatrooms are supposed to be blocked on student computers so I asked her how she accessed it. She told me the filter blocks sites based on the IP address. She went to Pimpmyip.com and accessed the site through it.

According to their promotion, "Pimpmyip.com offer anonymous surfing, bypass blocked websites at work, school anywhere! Surf the Internet safe and secure without revealing your identity".

If this is accurate, this might be a level of protection for Jihad watchers in Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia or any other place they may be unsafe. One of you, computer experts will know more than me and any info is useful.

On a personal note: Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch are usually accessible on my school network but I'd often find it blocked on some days. That was usually because someone had used the f-word in a post. So please, let's keep this site accessible to everybody. If you feel you must use an obscenity the write it like f*@k instead, not only because our young people should be welcome but also out of respect for the women here and because many of our readers are Priests, Rabbis and other clergy as well.

Posted by: Provoslavni at June 11, 2006 6:12 PM

The beauty of the internet is that it 'is' international. Ability to comment and converse as well as just read, is what will defeat Islam and jihad. Information is power. If Islam could stand up to the heat of real information (truth), it would not need lie or mislead. 'Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we first start to decieve'. Mohammad started a string of lies that persist in the Quran and hadith to this day.
And boy are they tangled up...The internet and sites like this one do a great job of untangling knots. As more and more infidels get untangled and learn these truths, they can make their own truth bullets, wrapped in pork sausage, and fire them through the internet, right into Allah's black heart...Truth is to Allah what sunlight is to Dracula...and has about the same results. So, lock, load and fire, and dont forget the pork sausage...

Being found...They can find the mailbox, but they will never find the house. We practice 'rualism' here at the swami temple. Then there is the moat and the alligators. It gets real tricky wading across that moat, especially at night. It's those darn gators...buggers never sleep. I bet those gators would love to have a couple of jihadists over for dinner...

Posted by: duh_swami at June 11, 2006 6:12 PM

No need to be paranoid about a partial IP number. In no way can it be traced by some internet mo to you. And certainly not to any steet address.

My IP is static, but it does change occassionally with long term disconnects and such. Depends on your computer, too. I have one computer where the IP rarely ever changes. Then I have another one where it will change if I disconnect the cable from the wall for a day or so. So IPs are not fixed to street addresses.

Only your ISP people know where you surf. But they know were everybody surfs that they serve. So why be concerned about sitemeter? There could be a muslim working at your ISP company and he can know every person who logs on to any anti-jihad site he wants to track. If you are that paranoid, don't come here.

Then again, I have no window coverings in my house. And I relax in my underwear. Peek in my window, and I'll moon ya.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 11, 2006 8:06 PM

A lot of naive people on the internet.

There is no such thing as privacy, or secrecy, on the internet, nor in our personal lives either..anymore.

Anyone who wishes can embed a lkb graphic in any web page or response, and if that l kb graphic is hosted on their own server, all they have to do is read the server logs to find out who is visiting.

A lot of people participate in forums from the office, many offices have static IP's (meaning that the IP leads back not only to a company, but to an employee) and all one has to do is grab that IP and then raise hell. This happened on Free Republic (a number of times I'm told) where "heretical" members were outed to their employers.

Mr Spencer has the IP's of everyone who posts here, and changing email's and typekey logon identities, can't hide your IP unless you use an anonymous proxy like anonymizer.com.

Posted by: Nariz at June 11, 2006 8:40 PM

To all worrying about getting identified on the net, never mess with:
1) Kiddy pr0n
2) weapons
3) drugs

Also consult this very interesting webpage explaining the little details of the internet and how not to be tracked:

http://www.searchlores.org/noanon.htm

Posted by: Al Shaheed Al Kuffar at June 11, 2006 8:44 PM

Caroline -- I checked your interesting link -- It looks as if the Khartoun Kerfuffle was the best thing that ever happend to JW. The spike during that period was tremendous.

Posted by: jsla at June 11, 2006 9:22 PM

Mr. Spencer's explanation was more than adequate. Most of us dare not say in public, the things that we say here. If we are too fearful of even our IQ addresses getting out, _________________ (insert your deity here) help us.

Many of us disagree about some things, but we all agree on one enemy: the jihadists. Thus none of us pose a threat to one another. Moreover, we have committed no crimes on this blog. Since that is the case, how can we be afraid of being tracked on line? The only ones who should be worried are those on the other side. That’s the only reason I wish Mr. Spencer had omitted that information from the public, as it doubtless could have used by certain entities under the proper circumstances.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 11, 2006 9:33 PM

On the topic of static IP addresses, just wait until you have IPV6 gradually take hold, since a lot of organizations (and people) do need their own IP addresses, for things such as video feeds for things such as TV over internet. Then JihadWatch's current IPV4 address - translated to IPV6 - can then host some 65536 networks, each having up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,610 members. Maybe we can all get our IP addresses from the fearless leader, hosting us on 1 or 2 such networks.

Back to Robert's original point, the "international" aspect of Jihadwatch is what I most love about it. It's wonderful to hear from Israelis, Lebanese Maronites, Serbs, Egyptian Copts, Indonesian Hindus, Europeans, Brits and a whole lot of other people about their experiences with Muslims.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 12, 2006 2:39 AM

cant see site meter stuff waaaaah waaaah

Posted by: jimmytheclaw at June 12, 2006 3:01 AM

Thank you for taking that down Robert. As someone pointed out above, at least here in the US many of us we high-speed always on access lines do indeed have static IP.

Let me explain why I was so concerned for those who do not understand. Everywhere you go online you leave information behind - and it gets STORED. Now, the example that I used above uses jihadwatch as both the visit entry and visit exit page, but many of the ones that I looked at before posting do not. If someone really wanted to compile a list of anti-Islamic jihad activists it would not take too much, with this much info available to do so.

I will not tell you exactly how it is done. Let me give you two examples.

Example #1: One of my granchildren's father decided that he would prefer not to pay child support a few years ago, that he would simply "disappear." It took me just under 25 minutes on a public computer with no specialized tools to get every single scrap of personal information as to his location, phone number & place of employment. After a hang-up phone call to his work to confirm that this was the right person, another $25 produced his social security number. Child support payments ensued quite promptly.

Example #2: Some years ago someone online decided that she did not like my opinions. At the time, I owned and managed several large websites. She took it upon herself to "out" me in a public newsgroup that had nothing to do with my "private" work persona. That info, BTW, though now out of date, remains archived and is readily accessible.
It didn't take too long for me to tire of her harrassment - and it took me just under 10 minutes to find her name, her current address & phone number, her place of employment, her office number, her work telephone, the hours that she worked and a MAP to her office.

In case #1 I had a name and the name of the uni he had previously attended. In case #2 I had only the information available in public post. And BTW, I am not an "expert."

Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 12, 2006 8:54 AM

Galloping Granny and everyone else:

Allow me to remind you that the whole IP was not available at Sitemeter.

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, who built this site, has written this to me:

By the way, I read some of the comments at your site, and these people are needlessly alarmed -- some of them seem to be spreading disinformation. There is absolutely no way to track an IP address to a particular person, unless you have access to their internet service provider's logs and a whole lot of time to analyze them. ISPs do not give out this information without a subpoena, or they'd be in big trouble.

A lookup on an IP address only tells you which ISP they are using, nothing more. And in the vast majority of cases, the ISP is a huge corporation with thousands or even millions of customers. The concern about privacy of IP addresses is enormously overblown.

And one more point -- every time any person uses a browser to visit a web site, that web site receives the person's IP address. This is very public information, not private at all.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at June 12, 2006 11:30 AM

Not to beat a dead horse, since the sitemeter is down, the comment about "A lookup on an IP address only tells you which ISP they are using, nothing more" is only correct when somebody is posting from home via a large ISP.

When somebody is posting from work, a partial IP address with only the last octet omitted is more than enough to identify the company you are working at.

Once an enemy has identified a particular company, it is easy to organize a group of people to contact that company and protest the fact that they have an employee posting to what they will characterize as a "hate" site.

Once a company starts feeling heat, it is trivially easy for their system administrator to identify which particular employee has caused the heat.

What happens then may not be good for that poster

Posted by: PapaBear at June 12, 2006 12:41 PM

As an example and test, go to http://remote.12dt.com/rns/

This site allows you to do what's called a "reverse DNS lookup". When you go there, it populates a field in the displayed form with the IP address you came from. Hit the button, and you see the ISP or company name that this IP address is associated with.

If you only have a partial IP, and it's for a company, all you need to do is cycle thru all 255 possibilities and see what's there

Posted by: PapaBear at June 12, 2006 1:01 PM

Papa Bear - you're right. I did your experiment and then left off the last sequence of my IP and entered several random numbers between 0 and 250 (it's a big place where I work) and still came up with my workplace.

Posted by: Caroline at June 12, 2006 7:38 PM

Robert it is important that this issue be addressed and discussed so that misinformation does not discourage some form posting.

We are fighting and ideological war on the web and some posters are more prominent then others, it is importnat that we share information about how to keep us as safe as possible.
Robert, I am sure you are doing everything possible and I am confident to keep posting.

We must not be afraid!

My grandson has read many of the helpful posts and will take care to implement them, thanks to everyone for the discussion and help.

Soon, the day will come when we can rise out of the shadows and join Robert and Hugh, in the millions to confront the Jihadist threat, for now we grow protected and connected by the internet umbrella that connects us to the resistance to Da'wa, worldwide.

We will win! Our time draws near!

Posted by: El Cid at June 12, 2006 10:56 PM

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs wrote:

There is absolutely no way to track an IP address to a particular person, unless you have access to their internet service provider's logs and a whole lot of time to analyze them. ISPs do not give out this information without a subpoena, or they'd be in big trouble.

In some countries, there is only one ISP, and they do collaborate with the authorities! Which means, getting hold of the logs will pose no problem at all!

Slightly off topic, I am now passing through Malaysia, where the above trend holds good. This morning's papers contain two items that reflect attitudes in this country:

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/6/13/nation/14517183&sec=nation

and

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/6/13/nation/14515682&sec=nation

Posted by: aviceda at June 13, 2006 1:12 AM