One of those ISP's hosts a site that offers an "Online course on manufacturing explosives", another one shows the type of online operational activity is the use of hacking techniques to sabotage Internet sites - what the Islaimsts term "electronic jihad." As part of this activity, Islamist hackers attack websites of those whom they consider their enemies with the aim of damaging morale, and attempt to hack into strategic economic and military networks with the aim of inflicting substantial damage on infrastructures in the West. Many Islamist websites and forums have special sections devoted to the topic of electronic jihad, such as the electronic jihad section in the Abu Al-Bukhari forum.
This information has been compiled by MEMRI and should disturb you as much as it disturbs me.
Below I am putting a YouTube video, created by MEMRI, warning , there are graphic images and this video was created as a visual presentation of the information found at the link above.
The list of sites hosted here in the US is very long and the nature of those sites are very dangerous.
We have brought our readers information before on how Islamic Extremists use the internet against us, one such example is here and another is here.
Do you know who is commenting on your blog? Do you have anyway of knowing? Do you allow stupidity to be stated in your comment sections without making sure said stupidity is answered? It is not about engaging with trolls, it is about never letting idiocy go unanswered on your site.
Leave THAT to the liberal sites, they don't care as long as the "idiocy" matches their political agenda.
Our Congress and Senate have work to do and they are not doing it, they are too busy trying to run the war on terror instead of doing what they were elected to do...which is to legislate.
Stay on them, make them focus on their job instead of wasting their time, our taxpayer money on endless investigations that have gotten them nowhere.
MEMRI asks what can be done:
What Can Be Done?
The prevalent view in the West, even among officials in charge of counterterrorism, is that the primary way to fight the jihadist websites is to spread an alternative message, or a "counter-narrative," which is opposed to that of the Islamists. [12] Indeed, Islamist ideology should and can be countered by alternative messages and it is indeed increasingly challenged by reformists in the Arab and Muslim world. However, such an ideological campaign is, by its very nature, a long-term effort with no immediate results.
More effective and immediate ways to fight the phenomenon are, firstly, to expose the extremist sites via the media, and thus to inform ISPs and the public at large of their content, and secondly, to bring legal measures against ISPs that continue to host extremist websites and forums.
Exposure
Experience teaches that exposure is, in itself an effective measure against extremist sites. In 2004, MEMRI published a comprehensive two-part review of Islamist websites and their hosts. [13] Within a week of the publication of this review, most of the sites exposed in it were closed down by the ISPs that hosted them.
This suggests that an effective measure against the extremists' online activities would be to establish a database - governmental or non-governmental - which would regularly publish information about Islamist/Jihadi sites, and/or provide it to ISPs upon request. This database would provide a service similar to that of government bodies that inform the public at large on various kinds of threats to its safety such as bodies that provide weather alerts and travel advisories; the Better Business Bureau, which provides businessmen with information about individuals and companies convicted of fraud; or the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control that provides information to banks, which are bound by the regulation of "know your customer." [14]
It should also be stressed that the ISPs themselves have a legal authority to remove sites that violate the law (e.g. the copyright laws) or sites that abuse their own regulations as laid down by the ISPs. Thus, with information on extremist sites at their disposal, the ISPs should have both the ability and the obligation to remove such sites from their servers.
Legal Countermeasures
The prevailing opinion among the American public - and even among government officials, including those in charge of counterterrorism - is that the First Amendment severely limits the scope of legal measures that can be brought against terrorist websites. But the fact is that the American legal code contains clear and effective provisions against terrorist organizations and their online activities, including the following:
Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations
The U.S. officially designates certain organizations as “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” (FTOs) and certain individuals as "Specially Designated Terrorists" (SDTs) or "Specially Designated Global Terrorists" (SDGTs). The list of designated organizations and individuals is updated regularly and made available to the public. [15]
These designations have legal consequences. For example, section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that it is unlawful to provide a designated FTO with "material support or resources," including "any property, tangible or intangible, or services," including "communication equipment and facilities." [16]
Some of the organizations and individuals listed in this document - such as the Islamic Jihad organization, for example - are designated FTOs and SDGTs, which means that the ISPs hosting their sites are clearly violating U.S. law.
18 U.S.C. Section 842
Another pertinent law is Title 18, Section 842, of the U.S. Code, which states: "It shall be unlawful for any person to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to... the manufacture or use [thereof] with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.”
http://www.atf.gov/explarson/fedexplolaw/explosiveslaw.pdf
Websites and forums that disseminate operational military information to terrorists, such as many of the sites and forums presented here, are illegal under this law, even if they are not formally associated with a designated FTO.
A motion claiming this law to be incompatible with the First Amendment was denied by an American court in the case of Rodney Adam Coronado, a radical animal-rights and environmental activist. Coronado was convicted of violating Title 18, Section 842 of the U.S. Code after giving a lecture in California in which he showed how to build an incendiary bomb. After being charged, Coronado filed a motion to dismiss the case against him on grounds that the law had violated his First Amendment rights. The motion, however, was denied by the District Court of San Diego. In explaining its ruling, the court stated that "the First Amendment does not provide a defense to a criminal charge simply because the actor uses words [rather than actions] to carry out his illegal purpose..."
We cannot allow our enemies to use our constitution against us, to kill us. That should be unacceptable.
Take Our Country Back has also been showing us about Jihadi Websites for a long while now. His latest can be found here.
Others discussing this:
Hot Air, QandO, Red State, Capatin's Quarters, Michael P.F. van der Galiën, and The Jawa Report.
.
