The advent of the internet for communication has given many groups a soapbox for their particular diatribe. Hate mongers, racists, communists, democrats and republicans all sound off on the web. The key here is to keep up with the changes in mood and tactics and use the information gleaned from these sites for the benefit of humanity.

            Individuals drawn to terrorist ideals are quite similar to people drawn to gangs. They are looking for commonality and a sense of belonging to something greater than themselves. Blaming the internet for someone becoming involved in illicit behavior is a waste of time and resources that could be used to track to people who are recruited the activists to begin with.

            Use this source of info for as long as it’s available. Monitor who reads it and what else they visit. Compile info to make an airtight case for the eventuality that one is merited. Extremists will always find a source for their inquiries; at least we can see what’s going on with this one.

I lived  in, and graduated from High School, in Tripoli, Libya during the early 1960's. There were people who despised the USA, hated us, liked us and loved us. They comunicated freely and were able to riot at will. Not unlike today's Jihadists. So is there really any difference?

From Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw Haw and the rest of the anti-American radio broadcasters, and those who brodcast for the War effort during the Seond World War (my father was in that, as well as Korea and Vietnam) to my involvement in Vietnam, three brothers to boot, there alway have been protesters, there has always been communication that led to anti-warism, actual hatred of all the three examples of American involment During the American and French Revolutions, there have been anti-movements. Ben Franklin lost his son to the British and his communications with same. Communications went from word of mouth to Radio Broadcast, Television and now the Internet. All were and and are simply means of communications. And always in the open.

From difficulty, word of mouth, to instant communication, the Internet, mediums have always been available.

There were no surprises then or now. The means have always been there and actions of same used. I went into the deepest areas of Africa and saw the revolutionary movements there. I went to Europe and saw and heard its' various thoughts and movements. The medium evolves yet remains pretty much the same. Communication exists and always will. It can't be stopped nor can it be regulated or stopped.

Should we censor the Internet? No more than should we should censor speech and the free exchange of ideas. After all, free speech exists in all its' various forms. People seem to forget that terrorists and extremists exist is all their forms. Leave them alone to state what they want to say. After all, it's generally only speech, with actions afterthoughts.

Leave mediums alone. After all, as said above, it's always better to know what the haters and lovers are about than closing either out.

jj

I'd say this is a really awful thought, Mashka. But we are certainly better off overall in many respects than we were as a society in medieval times or even in the 19th century, particularly by the criteria you provide.

I'm only speaking now about North American society, simply because to make a statement otherwise is beyond my experience and I think requires a complex set of considerations.

There really isn't much surprise here, terrorists using the internet to recruit their minions and spread the word.  Like others have said, better they are brazen and out in the open, rather than underground.  Well, totally underground.

While the internet gives them a soap box, it also gives us a trail.  It puts faces to names.  It doesn't provide any information that is not otherwise available, it just makes distribution easier.  There were manuals for building bombs way before the internet, but now they are easier to find.   But anyone serious about finding anything and doing anything bad will be able to do it, regardless of the technology.

This reminds me of the blaming of google for making the assault on Mumbai "easy" for the terrorists.  If not for google, they would have used paper maps.  Google just saved them some time.  It didn't create them, or motivate them and was not responsible for their actions.

Everything has a dark and a light side.  We often shield our minds from the dark.  It is a survival mechanism.  If we dwelt upon all the misuses of technology (Child Porn, Bomb Manuals, Sucide Cults, Hackers, Spammers, etc), we would surely suffer from depression.  (Jart must be depressed).  The bad guys will expend limitless energy doing their bad things.  It is their nature.  If the Internet were not available, they would employ other means to do their evil bidding.

Mary !

On the other hand, the Internet is like a mirror. They say, that  we can judge the society by  the way it treats the seniors, criminals and handicapped people. So we may also say, that the Internet   reflects the moral condition of our society. The whole specter of  the  Internet activities  can give us a diagnosis of the human kind.How bad the people  can be  if they are sure their actions will be unpunished.

From the little evidence that prosecutors have leaked about Colleen La Rose, I don't think boredom was the issue or problem. She's alleged to have said in an email that she was ready to kill a Swedish artist "or die trying." That's a bloodthirsty level of engagement that doesn't suggest she was just looking for a hobby or some part-time work to fill the time.

Mashka, I agree with you. And in this case, I think it wasn't mere boredom but several other mental/emotional/psychological issues that factored into Jihad Jane's "conversion."

The Internet also played a big role. For a deeply troubled person, it's easy to access the Web and easier still to get involved in activities that bring a sense of belonging. It's like joining a cult without having to travel. (Though eventually it looks like Jihad Jane did travel.)

A lot of nasty things can breed in the dark corners of cyberspace, where people think no one is watching, where you can take on other identities -- or personas -- and live in a fantasy of your own making.

This case should not be surprising; it should teach law enforcement -- and everyone else -- something more about the nature of following terrorist activities.

Allen - It is important that we not shoot the messenger. It's the actions of the terrorists that are the "Dark Side", not the Internet.

Thanks Terry and @Allen_Falcon - I agree with you about "Let's not blame the medium and method for the message." and other points you make. One man's rebellion is another man's threat, one man's salvation is another man's hell.

While I am not siding with the "dark side" as much as I may like Darth Vadar, I believe sometimes giving the darkness some light does allow for education.

the saddest  part  of this is that a  lot of stupid  people who are  bored and kind  of "just interested" are involved in that kind of activity.They probably wouldn't look for that kind of information. But I am  afraid, if they are not involved in some terrorist's activity, they would probably   be in some cults or other anti-social activities.Boredom is a terrible thing