U.S. Companies Still Host Terrorist Websites
In 2005, I got to experience the rare sensation of driving from the Internet — at least momentarily — the official English-language website of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah ul-Uzma Khamenei.
A news report I produced for my employer at the time, CBS’s Dallas television, also sent scampering about 45 other Islamic Republic of Iran sites. The Iranians had put them all up on the Dallas hosting company CI Host for less than $50 a month each.
After the unwelcome publicity, CI Host disabled the exposed sites and they had to find a home in some other country. Company officials issued jingoistic mea culpas and explained, implausibly, how they hadn’t known about the sites and couldn’t police their own acceptable use policy or servers. More on that claim later.
CI Host acted with haste on the Iran sites out of what seemed at the time a healthy self-interest: the company’s business arrangement with Iran, small though it was revenue-wise, represented a potential violation of a U.S. trade embargo against the designated state sponsor of terror. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) could have savaged the company with fines and sanctions had the agency chosen to do so.
OFAC did nothing then. Which brings us to now.
I had all but forgotten about my old work until April 9, when the Washington Post put out a front-page story that purported to reveal for the first time the problem of outlawed foreign terrorist organizations hosting their hate recruitment sites on private-sector American server farms.
For more than a year, the Post reported, a Taliban group used a site hosted by another Texas company called The Planet “to rally followers and keep a running tally of suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and raids against the U.S. and allied troops” for the cost of about $70 a month payable by credit card.
Just like CI Host told me years earlier, The Planet officials told the Post they had no clue about the site’s Taliban connections — and no technical means by which to detect sites like it. The Planet said it doesn’t even try; it just reacts to complaints. The story went on to explain that federal agencies wouldn’t be taking any action either, and why.
All of the same explanations had been provided to me years ago, not only for my story about the Iranians but other stories I did about the same issue dating to 2004. In addition to the Iranian sites, I showcased how other Texas web hosting companies were enabling Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad branches, and many other terrorist groups to get out their messages of violent incitement over the Internet. I found sites with American hosting companies that openly aimed to physically destroy America, commit terrorist acts against Americans wherever they can be found, and kill as many American soldiers as possible abroad.
Wow. Puts to shame my (privately) getting bent the other day over that a website charged with revamping Recovery.gov appears to be hosted and/or owned in the UK..
What did you expect? U.S. companies still do business with most of those multinational companies doing business with those countries–Iran and Syria– that are prone to creating man made natural disasters; or in less politically correct terms, acts of terrorism. Hey, the kinder gentler baby boomers are in charge now. We win wars by redefining them out of existence, don’t Bogart that joint, my friend.
YouTube is also infested with jihadi propaganda videos, which YouTube often allows to remain for months or years, even after the videos have been repeatedly flagged as illegal.
No. No. No.
The proposal to have the feds start indicting
is the equivalent of having the 8th Air Force
concentrate on taking Lord Haw Haw off the air.
And to do so by bombing English homes that have radios.
Additionally, the use of buzz words is useful for finding out where to look and read and try to come to a rational conclusion. To use the same words as the trigger for removal will wrongully eliminate legitimate and useful speech. Raymond Ibrahim, for example, would be unable to publish his findings without running afoul of this cyber-censor. There is NO subsitute for thoughtful, painstaking, and monetarily expensive, human judgement on the part of the providers. Requiring that they spend for such matters without giving compensation in return would appear to be an unfunded mandate of dubious legality.
Then we come to the question of trying to eliminate postings just because somebody does not emotionally like the content of the posting. If one of these companies starts doing that, the effected parties can always go to another company. Bring the government in and the innocent parties have no place to go.
The only items available to the public will then be the various and sundry forms of the “politically correct”. Our base of knowledge will then be the equivalent of “education” by memorizing the Quran. Pardon me, but is that not the goal of all them thar jihadists? Shore is.
In short, unless it can be objectively established that these websites actually play a role in maintaining enemy capabilities, leave the annoying s.o.b.s alone.
PS: And kindly do not tell me that there is no intelligence value in their obscenities. Perusing websites such as these shows (a) what their emotional appeal consists of and (b) what alterations in that appeal are being made.
For example: The notorious phots from Abu Gharib
are alleged to have recruited innumerable new jihadists. Is this true or not? I have not done the kind of website-surfing that I recommend above. However, initial indications are that the photos generated big yawns in the mideast and the only outrage was in the west.
The proposal(s) in the article amount to cutting off our own noses in order to spite their faces. Or so it seems to me.
It is impossible and unfair to expect one host to police all the content on the web. But if a terrorist site is still around after complaints are made, then the company must be shut down, because America’s safety comes before the rights of terrorists. But also because the host may well be a terrorist-friendly sponsor. Some good points here.
These companies should be named and shamed. Their other customers should be named and shamed. Their employees should be named and shamed. Its disgusting.
Does anyone know of an organisation or website dedicated to doing just that? Seems like a good idea.
Iran needs to be stopped. It’s within your power to help.
Right now Iran is in trouble economically, mostly due to the recent collapse in the price of oil. Now is the time to hit them in their wallets.
* Get in touch with every business you know of that is doing business with Iran and let them know that they’ve lost you as a customer until they cease their connections with Iran.
* Boycott every business that does business with Iran.
* Send copies of your correspondence to the media and your favorite blogs.
* Get the word out – Forward this to as many people as you can, post this on websites, blogs, facebook, etc.
Go here for a list of businesses working with Iran
Lets stop Iran now!
DoubleTapper
DoubleTapper@gmail.com
DoubleTapper, blogging on Guns Politics Defense from Israel
These companies should be put out of buisness and in istances where they had complaints about the sites and did nothing, those in charge need to go to jail for profiting off of the terrorist organization. It’s not just islamic etremists sites that they’re recieving profit from either. If you google terrorist sites or key words to be on those sites like beheadings, a litany of site pop up from all types of organizations. I was surprised to see a russian nazzi terrorist site among them. I would like to see policy extended so that we do not do buisness with internaltional countries that enable and profit off of facilitating these web sites of hate.
It’s impossible and unfair to expect one host to police all the content on the web. But if a terrorist site is still around after complaints are made, then the company must be shut down, because America’s safety comes before the rights of terrorists. But also because the host may well be a terrorist-friendly sponsor. Some good points here.