9/11 sites alongside radical Jihadist sites in House Hearing

[gareth]

http://www.911blogger.com/node/12505

Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center presents 9/11 sites alongside radical Jihadist sites to House Hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet"

[blackcat]

An admission of guilt?

[Mark Gobell]

Interesting.

Now that H.R. 1955 - The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, has been passed, the co-authors of that bill, representatives Dave Reichert and Jane Harman who chairs the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, hear testimony from four relative "experts" at a hearing on 6.11.7, titled, “Using the Web as a Weapon: the Internet as a Tool for Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism”.

In her preamble, Harman asserts:

[Stefan]

We can expect more of the same I'm afraid. The conflating of conspiracy theories and terrorism (as anyone who caught my rant on it on WAC Radio this week will know) started some time ago, initially with Bush's "let us never tolelerate outrageous conspiracy theories" trash talk and then further with the National Security Council article "Strategy for Winning the War on Terror" which has been posted on the White House website for some time.

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html)

Here they quickly spunk off some propaganda saying "Terrorism has nothing to do with foreign policy, nothing to do with poverty, nothing to do with Israel/Palestine" then proceed to let us know what DOES cause terrorists to want to kill and maim- number three on the list?

Conspiracy Theories!

"Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda." 

Later in the document we see more linking of terrorism and the internet particularly:

"[Terrorists] use today's technologies with increasing acumen and sophistication. This is especially true with the Internet, which they exploit to create and disseminate propaganda, recruit new members, raise funds and other material resources, provide instruction on weapons and tactics, and plan operations. [/b]Without a communications ability, terrorist groups cannot effectively organize operations, execute attacks, or spread their ideology. We and our partners will continue to target the communication nodes of our enemy."(Emphasis mine).

Further:

"The ability of terrorists to exploit the Internet and 24/7 worldwide media coverage allows them to bolster their prominence as well as feed a steady diet of radical ideology, twisted images, and conspiracy theories to potential recruits in all corners of the globe. Besides a global reach, these technologies allow terrorists to propagate their message quickly, often before an effective counter to terrorist messages can be coordinated and distributed. These are force multipliers for our enemy."

And more:

"Cyber safe-havens. The Internet provides an inexpensive, anonymous, geographically unbounded, and largely unregulated virtual haven for terrorists. Our enemies use the Internet to develop and disseminate propaganda, recruit new members, raise and transfer funds, train members on weapons use and tactics, and plan operations… [b]We will seek ultimately to deny the Internet to the terrorists as an effective safe-haven for their propaganda, proselytizing, recruitment, fund-raising, training, and operational planning." (Emphasis mine).


"We will seek ultimately to deny the Internet to the terrorists" will they get 'tough on terrorism and tough on the causes of terrorism"? They have already identified "conspiracy theorists as the THIRD MOST DANGEROUS element to blame for terrorism.

Because just like other PNAC objectives (written before 9/11) which the Bush admin began working towards in the immediate wake of 9/11 such as the securing of the Central Asia gas pipeline and Iraq, control of the internet was on the table as an objective from day one. Right there, in their defining document is a call for control over the "International Commons" of the internet. This is hardly surprising - how could they achieve "Total Spectrum Dominance" without it?

It is my belief that the freedom we currently have to spread information globally, by-passing the main stream media, will be short lived; this freedom is a bigger threat to the Neo-Con aim of global hegemony than the instability in Iraq and Iran’s nuclear ambitions put together. Through the internet we can challenge the propaganda we are fed through newspapers and television news; the people have never had such power before and it is inconceivable it will be allowed to go on forever.

The document quoted above stretches desperately to paint a picture where the internet is a vital tool for terrorists; where “conspiracy theorists” (the derogatory term for people challenging the government’s version of events of a particular situation) are a primary cause of terrorism and it claims that a goal of the “War on Terror” must be to control the internet.

Could it be that it is laying the groundwork for a future false flag attack which could be presented as being reliant on terrorist access to the internet and justify new controls which will rob net freedom from the masses?

People who know me will be bored with this rant of mine by now - but I firmly believe once Internet 2 is ready to roll, the next false flag attack will be too - it will be found to have been organised, facilitated and coordinated through the internet (no doubt the CIA are busy on a server based somewhere in Tehran as we speak creating the "evidence") and they will say:

"Until we get this under control we need to shut down Internet 1 - just temporarily [like all the other freedoms] - don't worry - you'll still have ebay and amazon - you'll still be able to access the BBC, but we need to get a hold of this problem and fast!"

Who knows, maybe it will turn out the "terrorists" were radicalised by reading "outlandish" conspiracy theories about 9/11 on the internet as well, killing two birds and demonising anyone who challenges the governments version of their next mass slaughter of their own people...

It doesn't matter whether there are loose ends with the new FF or not - without internet freedom it will be an uphill struggle to make the same gains again our movement have this time, but one I ultimatley believe we are equal to.

Remember what the man said -

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

[rodin]

Simon Wiesenthal Center presents 9/11 sites alongside radical Jihadist sites to House Hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet"

[xmasdale]

I think the tactic to be employed should be to move 9/11 truth sites away from US based internet service providers. UK ones may get cobbled too so are there any countries which are unlikely to fall prey to US pressure on this issue? Malaysia, perhaps? Venezuela?

[Stefan]

[Skeptic]

If 9/11 truthers got locked up left right and centre, don't you think that would wake a lot of people up?

My mum would certainly pay a bit more attention

[Stefan]

Not if no one reported it.

The key point is - most people wouldn't face jail before taking the site down. The legislation cites they can prosecute and shut it down them selves if the "offender" does not remove the "dangerous" material when asked.

They could also bully the server host into dropping it, as was done to Craig Murray and Boris "the buffoon" Johnson's blogs recently.

[Mark Gobell]

More here from a July 2005 CAMPACC article on the ever so reliable international terrorism "expert" Rohan Gunaratna, upon whose assertions, his colleague and RAND functionary, Dr Bruce Hoffman bases his now, globally proliferated claim that the 10.8.2006 liquid bomb plot mastermind was Afghan Al Q chief, Abu Musab Ubaydah al Masri, was was reportedly captured in November 2005.

Google Abu Musab Ubaydah al Masri and you'll realise the single sourced Hoffmanesque "provenance" of this allegation.

[keithm]

Dear Mr. Milton,



Over the past few days I have received a number of emails regarding my testimony to the House Committee on Homeland Security. Much of those emails appear to have been based on misapprehensions of my testimony. My testimony was about “the Internet as a tool for violent radicalization”, and not about 9/11. My reference to 9/11 consisted of 1 sentence out of 6 pages of testimony, and in that sentence (with 2 out of 38 accompanying PowerPoint slides) I referenced “how 9/11 is viewed in some eyes, including those who applauded it as well as some conspiracy sites.” I then continue by illustrating the types of conspiracy theories often found online, such as those based upon of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the infamous antisemitic text, or that generally blame the US government in a pernicious manner (i.e. for intentionally spreading the AIDS virus), or that have the “entire Western World engaged in a conspiracy against Islam” Nowhere in there is there any mention of 9/11! In this regard our only concern with 9/11 is when the inquiries slide into incubators for hate (i.e. “This fake Hamas soldier wearing a "Star of David" is as much a Zionist as the 9-11 terrorists Chertoff covers for. Chertoff is the son of a terrorist himself. Don't let him off the hook!”).



Finally, in my recommendations, I never urged any type of censorship. In fact, I specifically state that (#5) that any steps taken in regard to the Internet must be done legally, and over the course of a decade in dealing with this issue I have consistently stressed that the First Amendment must be maintained in the virtual as well as the real world. I have even argued that in conferences in Europe when attempts were being made to impose international controls on the Internet, saying, as I did last year in Berlin that we should “avoid getting bogged down in a useless debate on the First Amendment” because we (in the US) are not going to erase it, nor should we.



Please feel free to share this with any interested parties.



Sincerely,



Mark Weitzman