September 14, 2005
Losing the War on Terror One Website at a Time
We won the battle in Afghanistan. We will win the battle in Iraq. But will we win the war on terror? Not without fighting it on its most important field of battle:
the internet.
Aaron at Internet Hagganah has an important essay:
Afghanistan was invaded.
It had to be done.
It had to be done, and it was not enough.
So it is with the Internet.
There's more.
Al Qaida makes extensive use of the internet to plan and execute operations, train and indoctrinate new generations of terrorists, and generally to overcome what limits the occupation of Afghanistan by US and Coalition forces imposes on them. The Internet is another front, another theater of operations, another "failed state" if you will, where there is no rule of law in any meaningful sense.
Surrendering this territory to Al Qaida without a fight would have disastrous consequences.
Thus I note with no small amount of irony that some of the greatest minds in American counter-terrorism - people who believe whole-heartedly that the US invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing to do despite the fact that Al Qaida survived - are convinced that when it comes to the Internet, resistance is futile. They tell us that shutting down the web sites of the global jihad is a "fool's errand". They believe this is the case regardless of who it is that ultimately decides to shut such websites down.
Governments around the globe should be advised to remove from the books all laws against incitement to violence, and internet service providers must be told that they are obligated to provide services to Al Qaida: the American counter-terrorism experts say so....
If Al Qaida is using the Internet we must combat them on the Internet.
It must be done.
It must be done, and it is not enough.
READ. THE. REST.
Posted by: Rusty at
11:37 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Rusty:
I wonder why there are no comments on this post? I'm just speculating here, but it seems to me the main thing protecting these Qaeda sites is the fact that most of their natural oppostion doesn't speak the language. Thus, we have to rely on third party translations of what
they consider important statements, in order to have any idea at all about what's going on. I think it would be tough to get rid of this threat with command/control tactics and strategies, but that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to accomplish it.
Posted by: Demosophist at September 15, 2005 11:00 AM (wEPG0)
2
Interesting theory, but i must comment myself that I believe a quote "War on Terror" is futile. Hard Power ineveitably causes terror, and robs the United States of international credibility. Hard Power, like military action or coercive interogation causes hatred, and not just from terrorists. Our approval ratings are at all time lows. I have read, and love George Soros's article on the war on terror. A "War" on terror will inevitably be lost because its a war. In order to stamp out terrorism we must allow them to funnel their dissent non-violently. We do this through Democracy Promotion, and soft power. Sites like this, saying that what the terrorists do are wrong is an excersize of free speech. We are using soft power. Once everyone in the world lives in the Free World of western democracy, and free thought, terrorism will be unnecessary as everyone can simply protest. What the terrorists do is an abuse to free speech, and must be stopped in order for legitimate free speech to continue.
Posted by: Ash at October 17, 2005 03:22 PM (v4xco)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
19kb generated in CPU 0.0203, elapsed 0.1314 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1181 seconds, 251 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
