Rumor: The US Blocks Al Queda Websites

[Ness]

I don't know if this is ture or not, but I've heard that the US has blocked a few websites relating to Al Queda. If this is true then I am outraged that they would do something like this. Why? Because if they start blocking some websites because of their content, what is to stop them from blocking other websites?

[DarthFomar]

It makes no sense...why did they block them?!

What purpose does it hold?!

{edit: if they block the websites won't that just anger them further}


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DarthFomar on 2004-05-14 04:25 ]</font>

[Armok]

They also close down all those great websites with free music and other illegal stuff on them how irritainting.

America freedom for all, as long as you do as we say.

[Hrith]

On 2004-05-14 06:48, Armok wrote:
America freedom for all, as long as you do as we say.
As you know, same everywhere, mate.

[Armok]

On 2004-05-14 07:16, Kef wrote:


On 2004-05-14 06:48, Armok wrote:
America freedom for all, as long as you do as we say.
As you know, same everywhere, mate.



Yep I won't argue against that.

[Subliminalgroove]

It could just be that their servers are fried due to the traffic this Nick Berg thing has caused.

They might have been /.ed...

[Scejntjynahl]

Granted it is an infringement of certain rights, but why would you want access to those sites anyways?

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-05-14 07:48, Furankunichan wrote:
Granted it is an infringement of certain rights, but why would you want access to those sites anyways?



Knowlege.

[Ness]

On 2004-05-14 07:48, Furankunichan wrote:
Granted it is an infringement of certain rights, but why would you want access to those sites anyways?



It's the principle of the thing.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

A number of Al Qaeda-related websites have been closed down by their webhosts, because of the excessive traffic they've been generating as of late.

I wouldn't get too paranoid about it, if I were you. Bad for your health.

[Dangerous55]

As I understand it we are at war with them.

[Hrith]

On 2004-05-14 13:19, Ness wrote:


On 2004-05-14 07:48, Furankunichan wrote:
Granted it is an infringement of certain rights, but why would you want access to those sites anyways?
It's the principle of the thing.
I disagree, well, in a way.

The French President decided to block all nazi sites from France, I don't see that as an infringement of certain rights.

[Schpitz]

On 2004-05-14 07:53, Subliminalgroove wrote:


On 2004-05-14 07:48, Furankunichan wrote:
Granted it is an infringement of certain rights, but why would you want access to those sites anyways?



Knowlege.



This is America. If you're that interested in Al Queda, just freaking move there on your own and learn about all that shit on your own. Quit judging the government for their decisions.

How else will they keep people like you from being unnecesarily curious?

[Madzozs]

How can a thirst for knowledge warrant someone telling them to move to a different country? I just don't get that. You have to get off of this, "If you don't like it, get out" mentality. The USA is based on an open forum in way. Our whole government is open for the public to share their opinions, educated or ignorant. One may want to see these sites for the knowledge of how people in that area of the world are reacting to all that is going on. I can tell you right now I have watched the Berg video for the sole purpose of knowledge. I did not enjoy the sight of someone's head being chopped off with a machete, but I must say I learned more from seeing the video than I would have by reading about it.

People would like to see these websites just so they can understand that side of the story.

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-05-14 18:13, Schpitz wrote:
This is America. If you're that interested in Al Queda, just freaking move there on your own and learn about all that shit on your own. Quit judging the government for their decisions.

How else will they keep people like you from being unnecesarily curious?



Thank you Madzozs for being intelligent.

Schpitz, as you so ignorantly place in the front of your message... This is America. And as such, I have a right to explore and learn about anything I want. As long as I don't harm any other being, I am well within my rights. Not to mention that ignorance is weakness. IF you want to effectively combat something; be it an opposing force, inhumane treatment of fellow human beings, or a fellow forum member's ignorance, you must LEARN all you can about your opponent. That means reading things you find distasteful, horrifying, and just plain ignorant.

Why the hell do you think we have an INTELLIGENCE agency?

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!

I suggest you go read.

[Alielle]

Somehow this topic reminds me of this article. (.PDF file, beware)

US Advertisers Unwittingly Support Terrorism (http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/uscos.pdf)

[Subliminalgroove]

I feel the author of that article may be going a tad far by saying that corporations are supporting terrorism... Its a VERY roundabout manner.

Those companies are supporting terrorism with about the ssme amount of connectedness as when you or I fill our gas tanks.

I am personally not loosing any sleep over wal-mart or amazon sponsoring Yahoo or Hotmail. I fail to see why she should.

If it was discovered that one of these companies were piping funds directly to a terrorist organization that would be a different beast. But this is just giving money to Yahoo, who I imagine keeps these "obvious terrorist" accounts open at the government's request. What better means for getting intelligence than worming your way through some halfassed security on Hotmail or Yahoo? That's something the CIA can have their interns do while the actual agents drink coffee and have a doughnut.







<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Subliminalgroove on 2004-05-14 19:46 ]</font>


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Subliminalgroove on 2004-05-14 19:47 ]</font>

[astuarlen]

The French President decided to block all nazi sites from France, I don't see that as an infringement of certain rights.
Is there no right to freedom of expression in France? And that's an honest question; I'd really like to know.


This is America. If you're that interested in Al Queda, just freaking move there on your own and learn about all that shit on your own. Quit judging the government for their decisions.

How else will they keep people like you from being unnecesarily curious?
So we should just blindly agree with or submit to whatever the government says? That's a truly dangerous concept. People already think too little for themselves; let's not encourage an escallation in ignorance and a misguided sense of "patriotism". We should constantly evaluate and judge the government for its decisions, and in order to perform that duty, people must be informed, which necessitates free access to pertinent knowledge and as little censorship as possible. Just because you feel one viewpoint is wrong does not mean that it would not be valuable to be aware of it.


KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!
I think that pretty much sums it up. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_yes.gif

[Madzozs]

The problem with considering blocking websites against a freedom is, there is no set freedom about the internet. It can not, and will not, be completely regulated. There is always a way around a filter, or a red flagged system. It's just impossible. The only way to regulate it, is to have it destroyed, which won't happen.


Also, one thing I forgot from before. If we were to blindly follow in the path of whomever is in the president's chair, that wouldn't make him a president. It would make him a dictator, similar to Castro(who I have gained respect for recently, but thats a whole other story).

[Ness]

I just think that the internet shiuld remain the "wild wild west," meaning it continues to have no rules or regulations.


This is America. If you're that interested in Al Queda, just freaking move there on your own and learn about all that shit on your own. Quit judging the government for their decisions.

How else will they keep people like you from being unnecesarily curious?

Don't you think that just a little harsh? So what is people want to learn aobut the other side? That's no reason to make them leave the country.

[Shattered_weasel]

HOLY SHIT I FOUND IT.....IT IS CARE!!!!

Awww fuck that wasn't it.

[derBauer]

Why the fuck does anyone care if we block access to Al Qaeda websites?
First, of all, the US govt has not done that. They monitor those websites to see who os visiting them, and they track those people down. Closing them would cut off one of their sources of intel.
Second, you guys are not going to "combat" as Al Qaeda like someone said earlier, you probably just want to see the video of Nick berg getting his head sawed off and if that is the case, PM me.
Third, like someone said earlier, we have shut down music websites but on top of that there is another reason to close them if we want to. Free speech does not protect criminal acts, if the content on a website is determined to be used for seriously promoting crime, I would imagine we could shut it down with no problems. If I had a website dedicated to raping babies I would expect it to be shut down at the least. Just like if Al Qaeda wants to promote flying planes into our buildings, and sawing the heads off of innocent civilians with a Rambo knife, I expect that to come down.

Free speech has limitations.

[Ness]

On 2004-05-15 09:14, derBauer wrote:
Why the fuck does anyone care if we block access to Al Qaeda websites?
First, of all, the US govt has not done that. They monitor those websites to see who os visiting them, and they track those people down. Closing them would cut off one of their sources of intel.
Second, you guys are not going to "combat" as Al Qaeda like someone said earlier, you probably just want to see the video of Nick berg getting his head sawed off and if that is the case, PM me.
Third, like someone said earlier, we have shut down music websites but on top of that there is another reason to close them if we want to. Free speech does not protect criminal acts, if the content on a website is determined to be used for seriously promoting crime, I would imagine we could shut it down with no problems. If I had a website dedicated to raping babies I would expect it to be shut down at the least. Just like if Al Qaeda wants to promote flying planes into our buildings, and sawing the heads off of innocent civilians with a Rambo knife, I expect that to come down.

Free speech has limitations.




That's not the point. The point was that if they shut down Al Queda websites because it's a "threat to freedom", what other websites will they shut down for the same reason? Eventually, the Internet will become policed and that's not a good thing.

[Shattered_weasel]

On 2004-05-15 09:52, Ness wrote:


On 2004-05-15 09:14, derBauer wrote:
Why the fuck does anyone care if we block access to Al Qaeda websites?
First, of all, the US govt has not done that. They monitor those websites to see who os visiting them, and they track those people down. Closing them would cut off one of their sources of intel.
Second, you guys are not going to "combat" as Al Qaeda like someone said earlier, you probably just want to see the video of Nick berg getting his head sawed off and if that is the case, PM me.
Third, like someone said earlier, we have shut down music websites but on top of that there is another reason to close them if we want to. Free speech does not protect criminal acts, if the content on a website is determined to be used for seriously promoting crime, I would imagine we could shut it down with no problems. If I had a website dedicated to raping babies I would expect it to be shut down at the least. Just like if Al Qaeda wants to promote flying planes into our buildings, and sawing the heads off of innocent civilians with a Rambo knife, I expect that to come down.

Free speech has limitations.




That's not the point. The point was that if they shut down Al Queda websites because it's a "threat to freedom", what other websites will they shut down for the same reason? Eventually, the Internet will become policed and that's not a good thing.



O MY FUCKING GOD SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT THIS FREEDOM SHIT.

Ok just because they shut it down doesn't mean a lick of shit about freedom at all. You think because the government does any one thing that you disagree with is because of freedom. Isn't true.

And I don't even think any of those sites are even down.

[Dangerous55]

I don't understand the logic of this.

Say the internet was around in World War 2, would we keep Germany's or Japans websites up?

[Ness]

On 2004-05-15 10:46, Shattered_weasel wrote:

O MY FUCKING GOD SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT THIS FREEDOM SHIT.

Ok just because they shut it down doesn't mean a lick of shit about freedom at all. You think because the government does any one thing that you disagree with is because of freedom. Isn't true.

And I don't even think any of those sites are even down.



It has already been established that they went down due to bandwidth issues. I was just saying that if they were to shut them down because of their content, that would be bad.


I don't understand the logic of this.

Say the internet was around in World War 2, would we keep Germany's or Japans websites up?


I don't know, but I hope not.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-15 10:54, Ness wrote:




I don't know, but I hope not.




I can promise you we would shut them down. Why leave an enemy's source of communication, information, and possible recruitment open?

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-05-15 11:19, Dangerous55 wrote:

Why leave an enemy's source of communication, information, and possible recruitment open?




Again: Information. If their primary souce of intelligence and communication is so readily accesable, why not make use of it?

[Hrith]

On 2004-05-14 21:43, astuarlen wrote:

The French President decided to block all nazi sites from France, I don't see that as an infringement of certain rights.
Is there no right to freedom of expression in France? And that's an honest question; I'd really like to know.
In that regard, France is much more "free" than USA.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-15 11:40, Subliminalgroove wrote:


Again: Information. If their primary souce of intelligence and communication is so readily accesable, why not make use of it?




Oh I am sure the GOVERNMENT would still look at it.

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-05-15 12:11, Dangerous55 wrote:


Oh I am sure the GOVERNMENT would still look at it.



But god forbid the civilians understand why their country is at war... http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_argh.gif <- not directed at you Dangerous... just the whole thing in general.

[Hrith]

STFU, n00bs

http://humour.blague.free.fr/page/photo/grande/Ben_Ladenator.jpg

JOIN US OR DIE



http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif

[astuarlen]

Kef, I can perhaps understand why the French government would be opposed to such sites if they were actively inciting violence or criminal activity. Otherwise, I am opposed to such censorship. Do you know what the nature of these blocked sites was?

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-15 12:16, Subliminalgroove wrote:


But god forbid the civilians understand why their country is at war... http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_argh.gif <- not directed at you Dangerous... just the whole thing in general.




You really don't need the enemy's websites for that.

[Hrith]

On 2004-05-15 12:46, astuarlen wrote:
Kef, I can perhaps understand why the French government would be opposed to such sites if they were actively inciting violence or criminal activity. Otherwise, I am opposed to such censorship. Do you know what the nature of these blocked sites was?
They were selling 'nazi stuff', Zyklon B and the like, you get the idea.
They were also clearly propagandist.
Clearly, the French government did not simply take out nazi sites, they also restricted acces to foreign nazi sites.
I think calling that censorship is erroneous.

[Ness]

On 2004-05-15 12:46, astuarlen wrote:
Kef, I can perhaps understand why the French government would be opposed to such sites if they were actively inciting violence or criminal activity. Otherwise, I am opposed to such censorship. Do you know what the nature of these blocked sites was?



I don't think the site was actaully blocked by the US, but by ISP companies. Either way, they should not be allowed to do such things without the consent of the customer.