One step towards banning online video games!

Reminds me of the hilarious incident with the Battlefield 2 Special Forces expansion. I saw the video some years ago and i was simply astonished that they managed to think it was a genuine terrorist material.

http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/285129.html

Now how can our counter terrorist guys train anti terrorist techniques if they can't see how the terrorist train? Senator Lieberman, you just gave the edge to the terrorist!:-)LOL

Nitwit, they do not train counter-terrorists by having them sit and watch random wacko websites!

But you're of course right(sic!). How they train, and how many situps they do, or what wacko mantra they chant really doesn't matter to counter activities.

Counter measures are determined by comprehensive analysis of threat capabilities and the anticipated targets and various pattern recognition technologies. Force is not determined to simply match the threat but to be sufficient to achieve an established standard of performance sufficient to neutralize a large number of threats, not simply one type.

Training is far more comprehensive and wide ranging than simply sitting and watching so video. And if such videos exist, they are available for viewing on a need basis without having them actively promulgating their crap for all to see. The fact is that such training involves MUCH MORE than that which you think(sic) you are aware or will EVER see!

SpecWar and SoCom are not dependent upon seeing foreign training videos to know how to train for counter-insurgency!

What is readily apparent is that few if any here have any real world experience beyond what they have seen on 24!

Stick to playing your computer video games or paintball!

two words. IRC, Usenet.

You forgot FTP and torrent.

Am I the only one in this forum who remembers that there are MANY video upload services like Youtube? What prevents these alleged terrorists from using another one?
Does Google control all of them? NO
Are they all based in the USA? NO

So?

This looks more like political pandering than anything else.

I think its stupid. First - how about "declared" democracy principals such as freedom of speech?

Second - how do you measure it? What is terrorist video? Showing guns? Fights? According to this - 99% Hollywood films MUST BE banned!

Third.

Real islamists will use now Skype, P2P and so on and its become REALLY difficult to track it. So, say thanks to old a** Lieberman, and his "work" for terrorism.

*yawn*

Freedom of speech does not apply to businesses or individuals. It applies *only* to government mandated censorship.

Freedom of Speech does *not* protect Hate Speech, or speech that incites clear and present danger to others.

Why even bother?

I would say you lost them at the "yawn", but they were lost long before that...

Can we say "clueless"?

It's a good thing they ban terrorism training video, but then they also need to ban those American bas****s showing their beloved weapons, they're just as sick in their minds as those "terrorists"..... And while we're there, lets just ban all those aggression-minded Discovery Channel Future Weapons episodes and their countless likes, they're all their for propaganda, and they are filled with hatred and aggression.

That's faulty reasoning.

One man's terrorist is another's "Freedom Fighter". Where do you draw the line? Hell, the "survivalists" aren't any different - if anything, they're more crazed and they do training videos on sites. No one b****es about them. The Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act and it kicked off the war that resulted in American Independence. Would anyone have b****ed about training videos for those "patriots"?

Would Lieberman?

And on the subject of Lieberman, as far as that goes, he's a rabid dog that should be put down and I tend to favor animals over humans - they're a cleaner and less vindictive breed.

"And on the subject of Lieberman, as far as that goes, he's a rabid dog that should be put down and I tend to favor animals over humans - they're a cleaner and less vindictive breed."

Amazing, so the wetback Palmetto bug thinks Liebermann should be "put down" - killed for opposing groups that have not only proposed, but who have actively participated in the politically motivated killings of others - something that he (the Palmetto Bug) actively advocates here in this post!

We knew you were stupid, I just never thought I would read of someone advocating another's death on this site.

Thank goodness you ran to Canada instead of the US after your 3rd world hole kicked you out. Canada, you have my condolences.

And Palmetto bug, the Boston tea party resulted in some destroying tea ONLY. And it did NOT "kick off the War that resulted in American Independence". And if anyone wants to make videos of some fools tossing bales of tea into the water, I doubt anyone is going to complain very loudly, you dimwitted @ss.

Congrats on being the first, to my knowledge, on this forum to openly advocate that someone be killed.

And Benjamin Franklin advocated, and attempts were made, to repay the parties for the losses - which was subsequently refused.

Not exactly an endorsement of their methods, was it Palmetto Bug? But then they could have simply advocated their murder - as YOU do here on this site.

Maybe you want to review your grand cultural heritage and their illustrious use of the 'necktie'.

just a quick comment here... The founding fathers of the USA - if classified by modern standards - all engaged in terrorism. The boston tea party etc were nothing but random acts designed to incite terror

he's a rabid dog that should be put down

Advocating murder, now? How cute.

Was there anyone left here who didn't think you were a total nutjob that you felt you needed to convince of that fact? I'd say, job well done.

Wrong, but that is a very cute generalization!

And one that reflects the poor level of education that most have received.

The Boston Tea Party participants went to great lengths to avoid any harm to persons or property other than the dumping of the tea itself. In fact, it is reputed that a lock that was inadvertently broken was even replaced.

An act so well orchestrated that its symbolism, while avoiding any extraneous harm to people or loss of property except for the tea itself, reputedly inspired that other great TERRORIST(sic!) - Mahatma Gandhi!

Wouldn't it be nice if you folks had a clue as to what you refer before making your amazingly inaccurate generalizations.

History has long since spoken that asassination is a valid tool of statecraft.

Your own Founding Fathers advocated the right to bear arms (you know,l the thing you hold so dear to your hearts despite the fact that it devolves your society) as a means for the people to rise up and strenuously object if their government became corrupt.

If you were educated in your own history (or history in general for that matter - actually, let's just leave it at educated), you would (should?) know this.

But I guess you're just being true to type...

...again.

You have to LOVE the hypocrisy.

"If we do it, it's gotta be OK but GAWD help the pee-pull if anyone else but US duz it".

Let the excuses begin.

As if anyone outside your borders with more than two braincells to rub together believes the drivel.

The tea did not belong to them.

It was someone else's property.

it was done to make a political statement.

Terrorism.

Plain and simple.

Dress it up in a tutu and make it dance - it's still Terrorism.

The favorite US buzzword of the 21st century.

Nothing can change that.

The irony is stunning (and more than a little amusing).

There were reparations made after World War II as well.

I'm sure those reparations balanced the scales quite equably too.

I'm sure if the parties responsible for 911 were to drop about a Billion Euros (let's use real money) on your government, it would be all good, right? Good to know.

"Dress it up in a tutu and make it dance... "

The right to bear arms, moron, is there for personal and property protection.

The use of the law by militant groups was not it's intention. Never was.

Of course, you would know this if your knowledge of everything USA wasn't second-hand from liberal schooling and tinted by your own misguided sense of superiority.

Read up on the actual instances of revolt prior to our fight for independance. Do some actual research for once. If you had, you'd know the Boston Tea Party had no resemblance to a "terrorist act" as no-one....not a single soul, was harmed.

As usual, your lap-dog rhetoric does indeed continue to entertain. Please, tell us more about how clueless you are concerning the US.

LMAO...

So dumping tea into the harbor=flying jets into the world trade center=mustard gassing an entire ethnic group?

Your idiocy truly knows no bounds, does it?

Two of those examples involved militant groups using violence and death to strike terror into the the hearts of those who survived. The other turned a harbor into a giant cup of tea...

...and you see no difference. Now *that* is amusing.

comparing war and terrorism again?

You do know they are two entirely different things, right?

No?

Then go back to school, you obviously don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Congrats on being the first, to my knowledge, on this forum to openly advocate that someone be killed.

Nope. I have posted several responses to spammers, telling them they should be swinging from a tree as well as a response to iTard7 where he accused me of child-molestation telling him that the tree was too good for him and that I sincerely hoped he had a face to face with a high-speed schoolbus that afternoon on the way home from his job at McD's.

So no, not the first time by far. But likely one of the first intended not merely to drive home a point to some idiot poster on this forum...

Only the fool believes that in terrorism, people have to die. Terror - ism.. meanns just that, the act of inciting terror. What you refer to is NOT terrorism in its truest form, merely random acts of violence. sure, both passive and agressive acts can both incite terror. The founding fathers were passive terrorists, the morons who go around killing everyone in the name of some who knows what reason are aggressive terrorists.

leave it to a person with "tool" in their name to be exactly that, a tool.

Please, do tell... Dumping tea into a harbor incites terror....how?

Yeah, I'm a tool. Wow. I've never heard that one before. I simply *must* congratulate you on your creativity and originality. You sir, are truly one in a million...

Should terrorist training videos be shown?

And to think that many of the same @ssholes that argue for it are the same ones who claim entitlement to share others files P2P without compensation.

Tell you what, in fairness...if we could limit the potential damage that might result from the display of such material to those who are in favor of its being displayed, I would say sure, go ahead.

Yes, because people who share files on P2P networks are so just like terrorist training videos that can potentially put them into contact with terrorist groups and actual training camps and that results in the death of people.

Didn't know P2P actually killed people. Personally, I don't use P2P networks, but you're talking out of your arse.

No one equated them as being the same in advocating the taking of life, you idiot!

But you might note the sense of self-entitlement where one decides they have the right to another's property is very similar.

Amazing how the two share a similarity in the manner of thinking, if not in degree, isn't it?

Wonder what criteria they're using to censor? For those who don't know, CNN censored the recent interview about Georgia...

http://www.alternet.org/...ng_kicked_out_of_russia/

But yeah, let our government censor what they deem is inappropriate and soon enough we'll be naming everyone who doesn't have a US passport terrorist. And who knows, maybe there will be US-China country where government can put anyone in jail just because they speak differently.

I'm certainly not for terrorist videos, but c'mon... Are those so-called terrorists the same guys who learn their trade through YouTube and use Google maps to target planes?

Are you smoking crack? terrorist training videos?? You can't be that stupid... Perhaps someone should youtube someone beating you in the head with a shovel and call it "gardening.."

china is censoring history. the us is censoring terrorist propaganda.

you're comparing apples and oranges.

Lets' see, one is censoring the depiction of past historical events, while the other is actively advocating and enabling future terrorist actions.

Yup, you've got it. They are the same. NOT!

Torture in Guantanamo bay.

Ensuring the prevention of future terrorism by using, what, oh yes: terrorist methods.

Invading a country and doing a 'police action" without the consent of the ruling government - even though they are your supposed allies. Oh, right - that's in the name of preventing future terrorism too (Pakistan).

Parking missiles in Europe supposedly aimed at Iran, despite the fact that they're on the doorstep of a world power who objects to them being there and again is on supposedly good relations with you. The Cuban Missile Crisis posturing begins anew - with the shoe on the other foot this time. All in the name of preventing future terrorism. What's next - Duck And Cover?

Peace in Iraq - vis death Swads (call them what you will - that's what they are) who assasinate members of opposing factions (not too many Sunnis left, I hear) - and PC_Tool says that asassination isn't to be advocated. How droll.

And that's just the last eight months.

Yup - we ALL (the Global We - as in the other countries on the planet) "got it".

But back tot he original topic:

I don't advocate terrorist training vids. Any more than i advocate "survivalist" training vids.

But censorship was not, is not and never will be the answer.

And given your government's long-standing stance on the world stage, it's also extremely hypocritical.

It's not conducive to bolstering whatever few remaining shreds of credibility you guys still have on the world stage. Given the above, the whole "lead by example" premise you like to think you espouse falls flat.

Funny how every example you give is an act of war, backed by a Country.

Funny how every act labeled as *actual* terrorism (by intelligent folk, anyway) is conducted by organizations *not* affiliated or backed by any country, hence why it's "terrorism", not "war".

That's twice now that you've totally misrepresented yourself. First, you equate dumping tea in a harbor to car-bombings, and then you equate war (an institutionalized conflict between nations) with terrorism (organized terror campaign by people not associated with *any* country).

One might begin to think you are incapable of arguing a point without totally misrepresenting the facts. Well, one who doesn't already know it to be true, anyway.

It is about time, took google long enough

Given this is the "Jackass" generation, it's the right thing to do. There's just too many people on the planet and too many misfits that would copy this stuff. Remember all the school shootings in the US for a decade or more? A couple of years ago, a couple strapped a neck bomb on a guy and forced him to rob a bank. Then blew his head off.

We've got enough of that. I prefer to expand speech toward art, not toward violence. Lieberman and Biden were front and center on all the hate speech legislation years ago, too. Instead, just leave the videos up that tell us how to kill terrorists!

Freedom of speech isn't optional, however it should only apply to U.S. citizens. So if a U.S. citizen makes it, I say leave it up. Yes I'm a jerkface and what I say should be left up too, as well as Liberman's comments.

Unfortunately the media has the right to censor anything it wishes/deems unfit for mass consumption leaving a lot of voices silenced, even the ones we might not like to hear. Speech that we do like to hear does not need protection.

You think they should leave terrorist training videos? Come on now...

Yes in fact I do if they were made by U.S. citizens. However we can all rate them a 1.

Just because I don't like what you say doesn't mean I have the right to silence you any more than you do me any more than we do anyone else.

I say make a video response that tells why Muslims are wrong instead, present the argument logically and effectively, then let the viewer decide. I'd hope that the viewer would be smart enough to go with the group that DOESN'T promote spreading their views though fear, intimidation, and murder.

There is the freedom of speech but there are also existing laws that temper it. Just as I have the right say what I feel, I do not have the right to shout "Fire" in a movie theatre.

The freedom of speech is not a blanket freedom to say and do anything and everything. There is absolutely zero value in a video being posted that involves recruiting for extremist organizations.

I believe in freedoms but there is simply no justifiable excuse one can give why YouTube should not remove such videos.

I think that's a very good point about the movie theater (and inciting riots etc...). However we're allowed to say we hate whatever country and that it should be bombed. We're allowed to have all the hate speech we want against blacks, jews, etc... So we're allowed to hate certain groups of americans, just not all americans? That doesn't sound right to me.

I haven't seen said videos (nor will I since they were removed). However unless they were talking specifically about going out and bombing americans TELLING THEM TO DO SO. I don't see a problem. If someone made a video telling how just for the sake of knowing, then that's another story.

if your speech will incite violence then you will be arrested and charged.

you fail to make the distinction between an idle comment and a material threat.

i also imagine that spreading terrorist training material falls under "aiding" terrorism; or if it does not, will soon.

"Just because I don't like what you say doesn't mean I have the right to silence you any more than you do me any more than we do anyone else."

that's where you're horribly wrong. the first amendment is not an absolute. the states and federal government have authority to regulate free speech and one thing you clearly are not allowed to do with speech is incite violence.

end of story.

Oh no, reread my comment, I never said you wouldn't get charged. I just don't agree with it on certain levels.

"i also imagine that spreading terrorist training material falls under "aiding" terrorism; or if it does not, will soon."

And after that crimethink will be the next step. But if you want to hand off your rights then go ahead. Although it means the terrorists won you know.

No no, not at all, you CAN in fact incite violence. However if anyone actually acts on it THEN people care and it becomes a crime. The major exception to this is the bomb threat. If you tell people to riot and they don't riot then there is no crime, there is you making a suggestion and no one following through with it.

Oh yeah and the other thing is the burden of proof, can you prove that the video was the source for someone to commit an act of violence? If not, then there is also no crime there (unless the terrorist says that was the video that inspired him to go out and create terror, in that case that's fine).

Only if your words cause other people to do harm to others basically. However that also calls into question US military training videos as well, so lets pull all of those down too. How to properly use and maintain a firearm? No one needs to know that lets just get rid of it.

Go burn some books while you're at it.

I think the idea behind blocking these types of videos is more along the lines of would-be terrorists getting in contact with fellow would-be terrorists and formulating a plan or indeed being invited to an actual terrorist camp.

These youtube videos can be seen as a advert, where by you contact the user who posted the video to join their real terror camp.
To me, thats a much bigger threat then people trying to learning anything from a simple video.

"Freedom of speech isn't optional, however it should only apply to U.S. citizens. So if a U.S. citizen makes it, I say leave it up. Yes I'm a jerkface and what I say should be left up too, as well as Liberman's comments."

Why just U.S. citizens? I'm in England, we have freedom of speech here too, we have our own UK youtube video cache servers to use, just like lots of other places around the world. So I'm quite confused by your statement.

I'm sorry but in a situation like someone posting terrorist training videos F**** the freedom of speech BS. What does this country have to gain by allowing such videos to be posted? Whenever something is ""VERY"" obviously meant for nothing but to help someone to harm others it should be removed. Whenever murderers get off every day without so much a slap on the wrist it is very obvious that our laws are not perfect.(Nor will they likely ever be)

I agree completely that someone can say they hate XX people they can call XX group whatever they want and they should. It is their choice whether to like XX people.

But this is nothing like that. They are actually showing people how to harm others. This is worse than if they were telling them to do so. Nobody is going to bomb someone because someone on the internet said to. But someone that already wants to harm others might use the video to do so.

If the video falls in line with "how to make a bomb to blow up the infidel American"...protecting U.S. citizens is one of the primary functions of our Government. Obviously the content needs to be closely examined in order to weed out those taking advantage of free speech to order to promote hate crimes.

With your logic, we should ban all the SAW movies and the rest of Hollywood that shows how to harm and torture people, all the violent video games that teach you how to kill, etc...

We should ban the America's Army video game then?

We have to trust that people will have the common sense not to carry out such acts. If they don't they will get themselves killed and that is called Darwinism.

Most of our laws no, but the constitution yes. Why don't you just burn it if you hate it so much? I bet you would if you could, that is what you're doing BURNING our constitution.

First sagummark if that were true we could CATCH them and that would be a GOOD thing.

Second revparadigm there are PLENTY of instructional videos and the like out there on how to make bombs. Just because they're US instead of foreign made doesn't make them terrorist videos?

A good idea doesn't care who had it, and the knowledge isn't evil but what you do with it can be.

This is just trying to silence the videos because certain groups do not like the content. To get rid of the terrorists materials, for the safety of our children.

I'm sure Hitler used the same line too "we must get rid of the Jewish 'terrorists' for the safety of our children".

Hey I've got a great idea, as long as we're deleting videos, lets go burn some books too while we're at it and have a huge bonfire and roast some marshmallows.

It is a ******* terrorist training video!!! What I am asking you is what do we have to gain by leaving it up? The answer is NOTHING! There is absolutely no "logical" reason to leave up a terrorist training video.

Yes removing terrorist training videos just sets fire to that sucker! Seriously the fact that you and others are even arguing that something like that need be left just makes me sad.

"Just because they're US instead of foreign made doesn't make them terrorist videos?"

What exactly is your point? Last time I checked the FBI arrests domestic terrorists too.

"I'm sure Hitler used the same line too "we must get rid of the Jewish 'terrorists' for the safety of our children".

The only problem is the Jews were not telling the people of Germany they were going to target them with violence, Hitler was speaking for them in his hollow accusations. These terrorist videos are the terrorists speaking for themselves, attempting to instruct people in how to commit mass murder. If you cannot see that difference, then you are just part of the problem in dealing with terrorism.

"Hey I've got a great idea, as long as we're deleting videos, lets go burn some books too while we're at it and have a huge bonfire and roast some marshmallows."

Terrorists make their intentions well known by their own declarations and make instructional videos to instruct others to aid their murderous rampage..and you decry this with the equivalence of someone censoring library books.

Oh boy.

Freedom of speech isn't optional

Freedom of Speech does *not* apply to Youtube, or *any* private business for that matter.

Duh?

You can speak out against the government without reprisals from the government. That is your freedom of speech. It means nothing concerning youtube, your place of work, or the theater.

The guy, like so many others is an idiot. Written like some high school student living at home with mommy who has never been exposed to such real action, let alone seen the real devastation nor had to address the ramifications thereof. In other words, a mouth with legs.

He is just like so many who invent rights for those whom, when they strike, whine that enough wasn't done to protect them.

Its very quaint when its just an abstract issue devoid of any real world connection, but when the sky falls victims like him are the first to whine and demand extraordinary steps be taken to provide for his own selfish welfare.

Like I said before, if we could be assured that only such dimwits would be on the 'receiving end' of such material and they were the only ones to be harmed, I would say leave them up.

I'm sure Hitler used the same line too "we must get rid of the Jewish 'terrorists' for the safety of our children".

You'd be wrong.

The Jewish people were *not* killing people.

Amazingly, this fact is often enough to distinguish terrorists from non-terrorists.

I'm amazed, frankly, that you fail to be able to do so.

The constitution does *not* protect Hate Speech, or any speech that presents a clear and present danger to others.

Are you at all familiar with the subject you are discussing?

We're allowed to have all the hate speech we want against blacks, jews, etc...

Are you stoned? Hate Speech is *not* protected.

That doesn't sound right to me.

Probably because it's not. Huh...you should trust that feeling more often, apparently, when it involves your statements, you're batting 100.

Is it in your constitution? No? What guarantees it then? I seriously want to know.

Go troll somewhere else. Hate speech is completely protected. Nazis and Klansmen can march wherever they want as long as they're peaceful when doing it. Now if they start a riot that's another story.

We have nothing to lose either, either way the information will still get out there one way or another, this has been proven.

Who said I was a victim? I hope some terrorist comes after you so there would be one less freedom hating idiot out there.

The fact that you're not just makes me sad. Why do you hate America? Why do you hate freedom?

Obviously you're too stupid to know satire when you read it.

Not to mention I'm sure some Nazi propaganda existed somewhere that proves my point.

My point is information is not evil, what we do with it however is. I view the destruction of any information as a travesty and an injustice. I might not like what they have to say, but I'll defend to the death their right to say it.

"Freedom of speech isn't optional...

Unfortunately the media has the right to censor anything it wishes/deems unfit for mass consumption leaving a lot of voices silenced, even the ones we might not like to hear. Speech that we do like to hear does not need protection."

Next time learn to read all the information presented before you make yourself look like an uninformed moron.

*laughs*

Yeah, you're the one who thinks youtube is protected speech...and *I'm* the stupid one.

Yeah, that's it. You're obviously a friggin' genius.

Heh...

They can talk. They can gather. They can even spread their propaganda.

But the moment they start talking about *killing* people, it's no longer protected.

Get a clue. Get two, they're tasty.

What's unfortunate about it?

The media is run by several companies. These companies have a right to air or print whatever they want, right?

Are you advocating we *force* them to display content they do not wish to?

Yeah, that'd be the definition of freedom...not.

Obviously not, however there aren't enough major sites that people read which would display the content, so it goes unnoticed. In any case the people are more than capable of policing their own content.