Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Wow. I really just can't believe the ignorance of this post. First, yes, it is Islamist terrorists specifically who pose the greatest threat to the United States. Read a newspaper. People don't become terrorists without an ideology, and currently, the most prevalent ideology which drives terrorism is Islamo-Fascism.

"A review of the hearing gives the impression that the government is contemplating starting a program to police cyberspace."

That is a highly misleading, half-truth at best. A review of the hearing gives the impression that specific governing officials (e.g. Sen. Lieberman, who is quoted above) support the idea of actively working against efforts by specific terrorist groups to spread propaganda and coordinate attacks against the United States and its allies. What you said here (and further down below when you sketched out your slippery slope argument) implied that the U.S. Government as a whole was planning on controlling all internet content.

"Not to say that terrorism should be tolerated, but is the internet really the source of the problem?"

You're right, the internet isn't the source of the problem; the Islamo-Fascist ideology and those who would spread it are the source of the problem. But the internet is a tool in the hands of such people by which they spread their message.

"Even if the Al-Qaida presence is shut down online, will that really end terrorism? At best, it slows them down temporarily. Is that worth the cost?"

No, it won't end terrorism. I hope it slows them down, if only temporarily. Just what exactly is the cost? Are you worried that efforts to hamper the effectiveness of terrorist communication and recruiting will defile your "blessed internet"?

"If you start policing the internet for terrorists, why stop there? Why not take down any anti-American website? Why not take down any site that isn't completely pro-America?"

Slippery slope 'arguments' are the last resort for sophists who don't actually have an argument. They sound compelling, but there's no bite because it's purely hypothetical. Please give an *argument* for why the U.S. will slide from monitoring, infiltrating, and sometimes shutting down terrorist websites, all the way to becoming the world-wide internet Thought Police where no site is allowed to exist except those which are pro Uncle Sam.

"Perhaps we should be worrying about physical terrorism, instead of online terrorist conversations."

Physical terrorism is propagated by means of terrorist conversations, online or otherwise.

"If nothing else, these sites give us an insight into what the terrorists are thinking."

Which is exactly why the C-Net article your post linked to stated the following: "They repeatedly said the answer to dealing with what they deemed a serious threat lies in a combination of approaches: using technical measures to shut down sites deemed particularly threatening may sometimes be worthwhile, but it's often more prudent to allow sites to remain active for intelligence-gathering purposes." They do use the sites to gain insight into what the terrorists are thinking. Sometimes they shut them down.

"These sites aren't doing any harm, it's the terrorists themselves that are the problem."

Again from C-Net article: "Leaders of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs said they're troubled that extremists are increasingly flocking to the Web to recruit, organize, conduct online courses, raise funds and plan attacks in a manner that's cheaper and speedier than ever before." Please explain how the sites aren't doing any harm.