Just shows how important the Anti-Jihadi Internet presence is.

Every time a Jihadi or Jihadi apologist propogrates crap, Robert and Company are there for push back!

Wake Up America!
Never Submit! Never Surrender!

Keep up the Great Work, Mr. Spencer. You are indeed an ARMY OF ONE. I am proud to be associated with this website.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 8, 2007 2:43 PM

Three points:

(i) Free Speech - its a good idea ...

(ii) Free Speech - even for the people I disagree with - it is still a good idea

(iii) Free Speech - because it lets me see the enemy real close up - is an even better idea

If people lurk in the shadows because they are "banned" two things happen (a) their message is more attractive because it is "forbidden", and (b) ordinary decent people can't debate the issues because they never see "banned material"

Have I mentioned that I am a fan of free speech yet?

Say NO to "Big Brother" censorship

Posted by: drk at March 8, 2007 2:53 PM

Hey guys,
Have a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqmMdPKw378

and by the way, don't foeget to get a life!

Posted by: Averroes at March 8, 2007 3:01 PM

I am sure to be a dissenting voice on this one, but I can't support this type of Congressional "gesture" at all.

First, laws preventing jihadi propaganda and training videos advocating acts of violence are on the books. The will to enforce those laws is what is lacking.

Second, supporting this non-binding legislation gives easy political cover for Representatives and Senators who are not really serious about confronting the jihad.

Third, once the House passes a "sense of the Congress" resolution condemning use of the internet by jihadis, Muslim groups will press hard for a "sense of the Congress" resolution condemning use of the internet by "Islamophobes." Anyone guess which sites will be on the top of the list?

What Congressman Shuster needs to do is go directly to the internet companies in his district who are providing service for jihadis and firmly tell them they should stop doing so. Then he should be on the front line in making sure the existing laws are enforced vigorously, fairly and immediately.

Posted by: teachingmyown at March 8, 2007 3:02 PM

Avveroes -- Who hijacked that guy's orthodontist?

Posted by: teachingmyown at March 8, 2007 3:15 PM

Evil stalks the Earth...

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1140

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at March 8, 2007 3:15 PM

Why don't these stupid, timid bastards do something worthwhile - like addressing our borders - instead of this do nothing, waste of time, bull crap legislation.

They could be discussing how to shut off the flow of terrorists across our southern border, they could be talking about sanctioning mosques which have been proven to be terrorism breeding grounds.

Remember what they did to Waco? No questions asked - burn it. While we have open sedition and discussion of violence going on all around us - they blow spit bubbles.

But they were white people - legal targets.

Posted by: infidel! at March 8, 2007 3:20 PM

There is far too much ignorant spew about FREE SPEECH when people have no understanding what the Ammendment even means.
People do not have freedom of speech which gets people murdered such as yelling fire in a crowded theater. There are all kinds of limits like not telling Chicoms what new weapon you are working on at White Sands...that is called treason.

People do not have the right to sedition, anarchy, treason, overthrowing of a government or advocating insurrection. That is what Islam is about. So until this "free speech" nonsense stops, the public will be led around by hucksters for power like Pelosi and Reid.

You have every right to state you want the world converted to Islam and to set up an Islamic Caliph in America........You do not have the right to call for the death of those who will not convert or the toppling of the United States Government.

There are too many simps who have no idea what the Constitution or Ammendments legal rights and restrictions are.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 8, 2007 3:33 PM

(5) Congress recognizes and applauds the work of the SITE Institute, the Society for Internet Research, the Middle East Media Research Institute and others for their work in combating online jihad and creating a resource for public education of the terrorist’s use of the Internet in the War on Terror.

Rita, Aaron, et al, Patriots!!!

Posted by: Arm A. Geddon at March 8, 2007 3:40 PM

Okay so they start debate about it oh lets say tomorrow.So in about one hundred years they would have decided what to have for lunch at the debate by then.

One must realize that the wording must be proper of course,no plain talk and plenty of loop holes for the privilaged.....namely th enemy.

these people just don't get it still.in a time of war this is one of the first things they should have dealt with if not THE first.

Lets see Iran and all the other hell holes won't allow access to internet in thier country,but since we are the home of freedom we should be able to let them use our access against us.

The legislation or what ever it is called isn't binding? well then by all means lets waste time and money on it.The media does such a great job of passing along information now doesn't it,in all it's true and unhindered anti bias truth?

Please something worthy from any of the idiots, please.

And all that jazz.

Posted by: Dar al-harb at March 8, 2007 4:09 PM

Say NO to "Big Brother" censorship

Here, here.
I say the 'sense of the Congress' should promote all who engage in 'enlightenment' of Islam.

Fight propaganda with the truth.

R.I.P. Captain America

Posted by: xqqme at March 8, 2007 4:22 PM

Maybe it is not only time that America made the enemy jihadist websites disappear. Maybe it is time that our government made those responsible for propagating Islamic terrorism propaganda on the Internet in America disappear as well.

Those who are responsible for disseminating enemy propaganda can not be our friends. (Especially if they are operating on US or allied nations' soil). I know I am stating the obvious, but there are probably servers that knowingly allow enemy propaganda routinely be put on the internet--some of which may very well be used to commit acts of terrorism that result in mass murders. This troubles me. Murder has a way of doing that.
Incidentally, there is plenty of anti-pedophilia law-enforcement done via the net. Why not for anti-jihad warfare?

When we catch such terror-friendly folks in the act of posting terrorism propaganda red-handed, we should see to it that they are prosecuted for their actions to the full extent of the law (I think we need new laws on this including ones requiring even harsher penalties for jihad-related crimes, even concerning internet jihad propaganda). I doubt this is presently the case (at least most of the time), you know they often plead the first amendment and get off. And those caught helping them deserve such severe legal action too as far as I am concerned.

Concerns about freedom on the internet ARE valid except for one thing: this legislation is aimed entirely at our enmies. We can make sure that the internet REMAINS free to everyone else--even if it takes legislation to ensure this.

Posted by: pythagoras at March 8, 2007 4:34 PM

pythagoras - Your thoughts on this matter are clear headed and full of common sense. They only thing I would change is: eliminate the word maybe.

____________

averroes - Hey man, I checked out the wares you're selling on the YouTube Expo/Fair and sorry, they don't match my furniture.

Posted by: Malinois at March 8, 2007 4:48 PM

So, they won’t confront the islamists but they will attack their videos. Doh, censorship is censorship, unfortunately we have to tolerate this stuff. After all, who decides what is jihadist? Will it stop at just islamists, my survey says, no. Does anyone trust the gubment to make such important decisions? I don’t. Use their stuff against them to expose them, as was said above. However, allowing it is one thing, the actions we take in response is quite another. We should give them all the rope they need in order to hang themselves.

Posted by: tgusa at March 8, 2007 5:39 PM

I have mixed feelings about this type of legislation. I think that it's close but doesn't quite hit the mark. Another site which I cruise regularly has made the remark that we could set together a group to go after the websites and basically corrupt them for use.

When someone that speaks of radicalizing peace loving Muslims into Jihadists; it says to me that there is a misunderstanding of the fundamentals.

The average Muslim that knows the Koran/Quran (whatever) knows the nasty stuff is in there. He will never speak out against the fundamentalist. In so doing he takes on the whole Islamic world.

I have seen on many time on this board that the truth shines a light on Islam that sanitizes it. My greatest hope of this legislation is not that it passes but brings on the great discussion of the "Theocracy" that Islam truly is; Besides being a cultulist belief.

Posted by: credit man at March 8, 2007 6:21 PM

Before attempting to limit freedom of expression, which by the way is going to be difficult in the USA, it is better if the US Congress limits Muslim immigration, which is well within its legal and constitutional ambit. This will hurt the Jihad far more then anything.

Posted by: DP111 at March 8, 2007 6:55 PM

I will be watching my intrepid congressman, Keith Hakim Ellison. If he's against it, I'll probably be for it. If he's for it, I'll be thinking of Hassan Akbar, American patriot and volunteer.

Posted by: Emerson Twain at March 8, 2007 7:31 PM

Muslim Websites Target Georgia Motorist for Death
March 07, 2007
Two Islamic militant websties have called on Muslims to kill the driver of a Georgia registered vehicle displaying an offensive bumper sticker.

On February 28 the "Black Lion" blog, a website run by two American Muslim who support violent jihad, posted the license plate number of a Gwinnett County, Georgia motorist displaying a bumper sticker which read, "Kill em all, let Allah sort em out.” A thinly veiled threat encouraging Muslims to find the driver and kill him was also posted.

Another Muslim offended, another death threat issued.

Jawa Report reader "Louise", who found the post, has contacted the Gwinnett County Chief of Police's office but says that they have not gotten back to her. Further, she reports that the person who took her call said, "what do you want me to do about it?"

For starters, how about finding the person targetted for death and letting them know that their life may be in danger?!?! Then, how about contacting the FBI, just down the road in Atlanta, so they can open aninvestigation!?!?

In the meantime, "The Black Lion" blog removed the death threat from their website.

However, another U.S. based militant Islamist website picked up the post and republished it. In a post celebrating the shooting down of an American helicopter in Iraq, a "Join the Caravan" author identified as "Mujahida3001" republishes the earlier threat made by "The Black Lion":

"Another blogger who gets few hits per day has e-mailed me and told me of a truck he saw with a decal on it saying “Kill em all, let Allah sort em out.” He was kind enough to give me the license tag number, too. Georgia tag [tag number is shown in actual post] Gwinnett County.

Just thought I’d share that with you. This is baraa [enmity]. If he wants to repeat the quote of one of the crusader generals during the first crusades in Jerusalem, then no, I do not care about his safety. I care about his lack of it. He shouldn’t feel any security at all.

So, Muslims, do whatever you can get away with.
Take care and keep it militant."

The entire website is devoted to encouraging violent jihad against American citizens.

Source: http://jillosophy.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Malinois at March 8, 2007 7:55 PM

I am tired of people that complain that "they are losing thier rights" thats crapola. if something like this were done,made law under terrorism laws then obviously it would only harm the rights of those who have something to hide or have thier rights "wronged" while acting in a terrorist manner.

Anybody out there had any problems with the new terrorism laws since the start of the war? Any takers?

somehow i doubt the gov. is interested in your dirty little pics or nasty little e-mails sent to your friends or intendeds.

i believe the use of the privacy laws are not as broad as one believes,yes they may gather info on just about everyone and yes the chances are that at some point it will be used illegaly or out of context.

the only ones that should be complaining are the ones doing something wrong or wishing to. Of course there is the political agenda for some group fighting such ideas.I am sure no personal agendas will come from these groups ....huh?

personaly i wouldn't care to be stopped and searched or whatever as long as they did it quickly.I have nothing to hide and if this would help get the freaks off the streets then the less i and people like me would have to worry about later. ( i know the last bit doesn't sound like it makes sense but it does ,if you think hard enough about it).

here in Peoria Illinois in oh about six months or so we have had the hells angels come to the south end,i live in the north end. the south end has seen an upsurge in gang violence,some new young gang going bonkers on other crews.The funny thing is the people that live in the area complain and cry and complain and carry on that there is no police in the area.Well ,well ,well the first sign of a police car they start hollering profiling,they refuse to point out the culprits.they have neighborhood meetings where the city is put to blame,the police....the white man.All because they keep themselves in this situation. Whats different in this and islam? tell me the difference anyone out there.

Lawyers have a market on what freedom is.Murder ,rape and molestation seems to be justa heart beat away of falling under "Freedom". It's insanity.It's no wonder islam feels it has a chance at over running the U.S. we are making it free to do so.

Everything has it's limits and there can be too much of a good thing. I consider myself a pretty open minded guy but i can tell you sex doesn't sell me and filthy language under the guise of freedom of speech is insulting.Morals are free get some of those.

If i am not mistaken freedoms were suspended in times past and returned unharmed when the threat to our well being was over. If you are kicking back and partying like it's 1999 while people die to allow you to do so and only complain then you are too comfy in your doled out freedoms and possibly haven't earned them.

perhaps the other side has more to offer those who wish to retain what they have here and think is found anywhere else.

grow a back bone and a sack and suck it up like good little freedom fighters.

and all that jazz

Posted by: Dar al-harb at March 8, 2007 9:01 PM

I failed to mention my comment above comes from someone with not much love for a goverment that neeeds a massive massive overhaul and that suspending or tweeking freedoms here and there to our advantage is not in the least a bad idea.

In fact im all for it.

Posted by: Dar al-harb at March 8, 2007 9:07 PM

Larry Pratt is Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, a National gun lobby with over 300,000 members.

Below is an editorial he wrote today.

Perspectives: 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome' - A reason to carry firearms for self-defense

I have compiled (quite easily, I might add) a list of murders and attempted murders carried out by Muslims acting on the basis of what the founder of Islam taught them.

Convinced that they will go to heaven if they die killing infidels who Mohammed taught his followers to hate, some Muslims don't bother joining al Qaeda or some other organized band of thugs. They get so filled with hatred from hearing Islamic sermons and visiting jihadi web sites that they decide to become freelance Jihadis.

The condition is recognizable and has been labeled Sudden Jihad Syndrome (SJS) -- although some people are unable, or unwilling, to recognize SJS. Politically correct spokesmen for the FBI and other agencies seem to be under orders to issue a denial that a SJS-related murder could possibly have anything to do with Islam.

The rest of the population should come to grips with the fact that many in America are susceptible to SJS. The best antidote for many SJS-related acts of terrorism is a bullet fired from the gun of a prospective victim.

The following list is offered to show that SJS is a reality, and that rational Americans should be prepared to deliver the most effective known antidote – a bullet administered at the first sign of an outbreak of SJS.

• March 1994 – Rashid Baz, a Muslim from Lebanon, opened fire on a van containing members of the Lubavitch Hassids in Brooklyn. One was killed.

• February 1997 – Palestinian-born Ali Abu Kamal opened fire on the observation deck of the Empire State Building, killing a tourist and injuring six other people before committing suicide. His daughter, Linda Kamal, said in 2007 that the family is tired of lying and admitted that a letter had been found on her father's body explaining his Muslim hatred for Israel and America.

• July 2002 – Egyptian-born Hesham Mohammed Hadayet walked into the Israeli Airlines El Al terminal at the Los Angeles airport and began shooting Jews. He killed two and injured another four. He was known to sympathize with al Qaeda.

• September 2002 – Patrick Gott killed one and wounded another in the New Orleans airport. He had entered the terminal with a shotgun and his Koran.

• October 2002 – John Mohammed and Lee Malvo killed 13 people in the Washington, DC area. Both were converts to Islam and had attended a jihad training camp in southwestern Virginia.

• August 2003 – Mohammed Ali Alayed almost totally decapitated his erstwhile Jewish friend, Ariel Sellouk, following Alayed’s getting serious about his Islamic faith. He went to a mosque after killing Sellouk.

• October 2005 – Joel Henry Hinrichs III, a convert to Islam, was an engineering student at Oklahoma University. His student career ended when a bomb he had strapped on himself went off prematurely outside a crowed stadium, killing only himself. Police subsequently cleared explosives from the apartment that Hinrichs had shared with Muslim students from Pakistan.

• April 2006 – Muslim Ayhan Surucu was so angry when his sister started to wear make-up and date men in Berlin, Germany, that he put a gun to her head at a bus stop and killed her. Boys at a nearby school, attended mainly by the children of immigrant Muslim families, cheered and applauded when news of the murder reached them.

• May 2006 – Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill student, rented an SUV and drove it through a crowded part of the campus-- intentionally trying to hit people and wounding nine. In a series of letters to the student newspaper, he explained that he acted in obedience to Koranic dictates.

• June 2006 – Michael Ford, a Muslim convert, walked into work at a Safeway warehouse in Denver and opened fire on his coworkers, killing one and injuring five. Relatives explained that he was being teased at work because he’s a Muslim and he could not take it anymore.

• July 2006 – Naveed Alzal Haq, a Pakistani, walked into the Jewish Federation Center in downtown Seattle and shot six women-- killing one, and wounding five( one of whom was pregnant). He stated matter-of-factly: "I am a Muslim American angry at Israel."

• August 2006 – Omeed Aziz Popal, a Muslim Afghan refugee, used his SUV as a weapon and ran down at least 14 people and a bicyclist in the San Francisco Bay area. He was targeting Jewish neighborhoods to terrorize.

• January 2007 – A 22-year-old Muslim, Ismail Yassin Mohamed, stole a car in Minneapolis and rammed it into other cars before stealing a van and doing the same, injuring several drivers and pedestrians at crosswalks and on sidewalks before police caught up with him. Mohamed called himself a "terrorist."

• February 2007 – Ibrihim Ahmed, a Memphis cab driver and Muslim, was enraged that two passengers did not agree with him about Islam. When they got out of the cab, he tried to run them down, striking one in a parking lot.

• February 2007 – Sulejman Talovic, a Bosnian Muslim immigrant, went to a Salt Lake City mosque on a Friday night. Then he went to one of only two malls in the state which prohibits civilian carrying of concealed weapons. He killed five before an off-duty cop (not subject to ban) used a concealed firearm stopped his murder spree.

Cornell University did a study estimating that there are seven million Muslims in the U.S. If even a single percent of that population is motivated to go kill a few infidels for Allah, the country would be facing 70,000 murderers on the loose.

The examples that I have found of Islam being the driving force for murder show that the prospect of Sudden Jihad Syndrome should be reason to loosen the country’s concealed carry laws. The Utah Jihadi did not have a concealed carry permit, but he carried his weapons to the scene of the crime concealed anyway. Why should the laws make it harder for the rest of us to counter what criminals are already doing?

Put another way, our current restrictions on concealed carry on the books in most states facilitate murder by tying the hands of victims.
?The law should be on our side, not on the side of the bad guys.
______________________# # #______________________

While the US government, in it's infant wisdom, is taking baby steps up the learning curve toward understanding the intentions of Islam's mullahs, we adults are "are reminded to maintain a high level of vigilance and to take appropriate steps to increase our security awareness". As well, adults are urged to encourage all positive steps the government makes to defend our rights as they are threatened by the Islamic jihadists.

Congress's struggle to balance the ideal of free speech and the desire to maintain a safe environment should seek to strike a balance with a set of guidelines appropriate to a State of War.

Malinois

Posted by: Malinois at March 8, 2007 9:11 PM

7 million muslims according to a Cornell report?

muslim inflation!

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at March 8, 2007 11:14 PM

Averoes

That was a nice cocktail of taquiyya and tu quoque, with a dash of theatrical presentation tossed in. Yeah, normally, just as one would learn Christianity from a Christian and Hinduism from a Hindu, it might make sense to learn Islam from a Muslim provided the Muslim in question isn't either lying, or saying one thing to his Muslim brothers and another to Infidels. And I don't know what TV your friend Ali Baba is watching - every channel that we normally see pitches apologetics for Islam. Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish, Ayaan Hirsi Ali are rarities, and no, they were all at one time Muslim, and definitely know Islam better than any other religion. Just because they jettisoned it wouldn't make them forget.

Also, the argument that the Quran is taken out of context, and that when Islam's enemies learned when Islam was about, they embraced it is pure fiction. If one reads the Quran, the number of good, or at least innocuous verses dwindles once one substitutes Islamic meanings of normal moral terms like truth, justice, knowledge, etc. As for Islam's enemies, the only ones who embraced Islam was the Ilkhanate, who made the mistake of allowing their rulers to intermarry among Muslims. Other than that, the Mongols remained Buddhists (dunno whether Tengri - Chengiz's religion still exists). Other enemies of the Muslims only Islamized after getting defeated in war.

The idea about Islamic terror being an oxymoron is something that can only be stated by a... moron. Just read up the history of Mohammed. Instead, the term Islamic terror is redundant: while all terror need not be Islamic, all of Islam is terror.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 9, 2007 1:26 AM

I believe that to take these web sites off of the ISP's, either voluntarily by the ISP owners or by law, not only errodes free speech in many instances, but it reduces the availability of every law enforcement agency interested in knowing about Jihad and the Jihadist sympathizers more difficult for them to track and obtain vital and necessary information about them. I spent many years teaching these types of agencies and other entities to use publicly available information to gather intelligence on a variety of issues; including: reverse engineering, corporate strategies, fugitive location etc. etc. The more we restrict the easily available(Public) information, even if repugnant, from the public sphere, the further underground that information will go and it will be come next to impossible to obtain. This make the jobs of those who would protect us emminently more difficult!

Posted by: kwg1 at March 9, 2007 1:36 AM

C'mon, people, of course we want more from our legislature, but this would be an excellent opportunity to publicize the threat of jihad and to move forward the public will to defeat it.
This is far from censorship (a non-binding resolution!) but simply using the House as a bully pulpit to bring the "do no evil" kids face to face with the fact that they have been doing plenty of it (who knows, they may even wake up and include jihadwatch and lgf in google news sources!).
Other video collections will pop up to serve up jihadi propaganda but perhaps not with the ease and reach of the google infrastructure.
Even if a resolution to condemn Islamophobia on video sites, or some other such garbage is mooted, that will stir the pot, more people will take a look at the issue, and the truth will out sooner.
Write to your congressperson and to op/ed pages in support of H.Res.224 already.

Posted by: kuchuklambat at March 9, 2007 2:34 AM

"somehow i doubt the gov. is interested in your dirty little pics or nasty little e-mails sent to your friends or intendeds."

Posted by: Dar al-harb

Unfortunately, the gov't does seem to be preoccupied with more personal matters while the real threats (borders, jihad, etc.) progess unhindered. While we do see indictments and trials and such, there should be many more convictions than what we are seeing and reading about.

Dar,

Did you write that or quote someone else?

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at March 9, 2007 10:06 AM

I really think Senator Shuster is on the right track here. I don't think the end result will be to remove these sites, which as noted, could actually hurt law enforcement efforts to identify jihadists and jihadist supporters, but rather will provide an opportunity to educate the public about jihadi activity, which is precisely the objective of this site. Who knows, maybe even jihadwatch will come up during the discussion. Imagine, Robert testifying about jihadist motivations and attitudes before congress! How great would that be?
Also, I liked the fact that he used the phrase "The war against Islamic radicalism," instead of the meaningless "War on Terror." Maybe 'supremacy' would have been more accurate than 'radicalism,' but the fact that he didn't use the phrase "War on Terror," to me, says a lot.

Posted by: Abu Allah at March 9, 2007 10:33 AM

"And in a popular DVD selling locally, a foreign sheik exhorts Muslims to take control of Australia by out-breeding non-believers.

British-based Sheik Abdul Raheem Green forbade Muslims from having fewer than four children so Australia would become an Islamic state."

There you have it! They're telling us exactly what their strately is: They'll out breed us, While we in the West continue down the destructive road of glorifying birth control and abortion as a liberating ideology.

This is the Islamic version of Mein Kampf, and just as Europe ignored that infamous book, we'll ignore the Islamic version of it -- until it's too late to save ourselves.

Posted by: rational at March 10, 2007 11:15 PM

The new battle front: internet jihad

You do not need to believe the recent 60 Minutes feature story jihad.com, to figure out the seriousness of internet jihad. Simply spend some time on one of these jihad sites, and you will have a clear idea. To sum up the new battle front, as described by the jihadist themselves:

· One: Because of the “war on terror,” the head has been cut off of the jihadi army.

· Two: Because of this, a new strategy is needed in the effort to bring down the West.

· Three: This new strategy includes the use of the internet to equip, train, and provide “moral” support for the new independent “freelance Jihad.”

In other words, the web is literally being used as a weapon, making this a serious issue. All other information should be considered with this in mind. From: Kent State Jihad: What’s going on and
what needs to be done.http://www.globalconservative.com/KentStateTwo.htm

Posted by: Madcap at March 13, 2007 8:27 AM

Any call for censorship is bad thing imo. It is a good to see this Congressman making people aware of these videos on these services. Then people can express their disgust to the services themselves.

Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at March 14, 2007 8:37 AM