Posts

Facebook and YouTube still feature Videos by Leading al-Qaeda Jihadis

Google/YouTube labels Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager “Nazis,” and buries content that portrays Islam in a negative light, even if it’s accurate, but jihad terror preaching is OK with them. Likewise Facebook, which recently agreed to turn over data on “hate speech” suspects to the French government. Since foes of jihad violence and Sharia oppression are routinely defamed as purveyors of “hate speech,” what Facebook is essentially doing by targeting such people while allowing jihadis to post freely is aiding and abetting the global jihad. If free societies and free people survive this sorry age, and an accurate history of it is written, Mark Zuckerberg will be portrayed as the enemy of freedom that he is.

Al Qaeda’s Master Terrorists Are Still on Facebook and YouTube,” by Michael Weiss and Moustafa Ayad, Daily Beast, June 27, 2019:

In 2006, Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rubaish was repatriated to Saudi Arabia from Guantanamo Bay after he’d served more than five years as an enemy combatant for training with al Qaeda, and fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan against the United States. Released as part of the Obama administration’s plans to shutter the offshore prison, Rubaish was admitted to Riyadh’s rather lackluster “deradicalization” program.

Then, sometime in  2009, he escaped the program and Saudi Arabia with 11 other jihadists.  They all turned up in Yemen and Rubaish soon emerged as the mufti, or Islamic jurist, for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) where he spent the next six years appearing in propaganda videos for the group’s media outlet Al-Malahem, as well as releasing a number of fatwas and articles for other al Qaeda outlets including the English-language Inspire magazine.

Rubaish was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in 2015.  But his ideas and legacy live on through his sermons and speeches, still hosted on Facebook and YouTube.

Rubaish is joined in digital preservation by other leading lights in jihadist proselytization and virtual recruitment such as Abu Mus’ab al-Suri, the strategist behind the expansion of al Qaeda into Yemen, who helped invent what’s now commonly known as the “lone-wolf” terror attack; Nasir al-Wuhayshi, the leader of AQAP and the second-in command to Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s global head; and Anwar al-Awlaki, the main cleric for AQAP who is considered by counterterrorism experts to be, even from beyond the grave, one of the primary drivers of those lone-wolf attacks.

Taken together, Rubaish, Suri, Wuhayshi and Awlaki can still be found in 105 videos on both social media platforms, despite corporate avowals that this stuff was fast becoming a thing of the past. Yet we identified the videos through simple searches in Arabic using only the names of these prominent jihadists….

Contacted yesterday, Facebook said it was looking into the videos that we highlighted on its platform; YouTube did not respond to our queries in time for publication….

The most-watched video is his half-hour history on the invasions and subsequent injustices that the Muslim world has faced; it seems to have been recorded somewhere in Europe, as he refers to the “Christian world here in Europe.” Suri has Spanish citizenship and between 1994 and 1996 he lived in the London suburb of Neasden. Following the London bombings of 2005, he released a statement praising the selection of mass transit as a major, legitimate soft target….

RELATED ARTICLE: Boston mayor appoints director of Muslim Brotherhood-linked mosque head of Office for Immigrant Advancement.

RELATED VIDEO: San Francisco: Muslim cleric says Morsi was murdered by Zionist agents who work for Satan.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Video Message To President Trump: Pass Law Against Censorship & Political Discrimination

It is impossible for most people to participate in the modern world without the internet and dominate platforms. It is the town square. Big tech and major social media platforms are banning and discriminating against those on the right. I have a message for Trump.

Help us in one of these ways:

Get one of our t-shirts from lanasllama.com or redice.tv/store

Send donations to Henrik or Lana:
520 Folly Rd STE 25 PBM 334
Charleston, South Carolina
29412

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: How Social Media Monopolies Silence Conservatives, How Anti-Trust Laws Could Help

The Social Media Neutrality Panel was held on February 6th, 2018 at the Newseum in Washington D.C.

Rightside Broadcasting Network reported:

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018, at 1:00 pm (ET) at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. thought leaders and prominent voices in alternative media will gather for a panel discussion on social media neutrality and the fight for diversity of voices online. The event will feature several prominent online conservative and moderate voices who have been impacted by social media bias, shadow banning and other methods meant to silence voices and limit readers and viewers access to information. Panelists will discuss political bias by Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and by search engines such as Google.

A Harvard University study published on August 16, 2017, analyzed both mainstream and social media coverage of the 2016 election cycle. The study clearly shows that modern conservatives in America today have wholeheartedly rejected the liberal mainstream media.

The 2016 election cycle was the first election cycle where conservatives used alternative media news sources to gather information rather than turning to traditional mainstream outlets.

Conservative Americans abandoned the mainstream media in 2016 and will not be returning anytime soon. This paradigm shift forced left-wing tech-giants to take action. Tech giants today understand they have the ability to influence what information consumers see through their complex, and non-public, algorithms. Often this power is abused. Several conservative outlets, and countless individuals have been targeted, shadow-banned, and silenced by these tech giants.

By silencing these voices, big-tech is limiting information available to the American public and is a direct assault on First Amendment rights. The time for transparency is now! Tuesday’s panelists include Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit, Pamela Geller of The Geller Report, Margaret Howell of Right Side Broadcasting, Oleg Atbashian from The People’s Cube, Tech entrepreneur Marlene Jaeckel and special video remarks by Michelle Malkin and James O’Keefe.

The panel included testimony from Jim Hoft of The Gateway PunditPamela Geller of The Geller ReportMargaret Howell of Rightside Broadcasting NetworkOleg Atbashian from The People’s Cube, tech entrepreneur Marlene Jaeckel. Topics all involved the current tech climate, social media bias, shadow banning and other methods meant to silence voices and limit readers and viewers access to information.

Watch the full panel discussion:

EDITORS NOTE: Pamela Geller Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of The Geller Report and author of the bestselling book, FATWA: Hunted in America, as well as The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. She is also a regular columnist for numerous publications. Geller’s activism on behalf of human rights has won international notice. She is a foremost defender of the freedom of speech. Her First Amendment lawsuits filed nationwide have rolled back attempts to limit Americans’ free speech rights and limit speech to only one political perspective, and exposed attempts to make an end-run around the First Amendment by illegitimately restricting access to public fora.

In Geller’s statements, she discusses how major social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, and Youtube have created the “new town square”, which they now have a monopoly on, and are using their platforms to erase and hide any viewpoint or person that does not conform to their pushed “progressive” values. Geller tells the audience how Google’s advertising platform went from being 70% of revenue from the Geller Report to them blacklisting her from the platform simply based on her conservatives views. She outlines how they do not just target voices they disagree with, but they make sure that those voices are unable to sustain themselves: “If they kill your ability to make a living, it’s a form of murder.”

Watch Geller’s entire statement below:

Google, Facebook and Twitter sued for aiding and abetting ISIS

Good. I hope they win a massive settlement and drive them all out of business. Each one has been cutting off its platform to foes of jihad terror. In February, referrals from Facebook and Twitter to Jihad Watch dropped by 90% and have never recovered. Google has changed its search results so that when one searches for topics related to Islam and jihad, only results whitewashing Islam’s links to terrorism come up. Meanwhile jihad terrorists, as is clear from this case, have free rein. These monopolies need to be broken up, and the sooner the better, as they are actively working against the freedom of speech.

“Daughters of California man killed in Barcelona terror attack sue Google, Facebook and Twitter ‘for aiding, abetting and knowingly providing support and resources’ to ISIS,” by Julian Robinson, MailOnline, October 6, 2017:

The family of a California man killed in the terror attack in Barcelona is suing Facebook, Twitter and Google for their part in ‘aiding, abetting and knowingly providing support and resources’ to ISIS, it has emerged

Jared Tucker, from Walnut Creek, was one of 13 people who died when a van mowed down pedestrians on the Spanish city’s packed La Rambla on August 17.

The three daughters of the 42-year-old, who was celebrating his one year anniversary with wife Heidi Nunes-Tucker in Barcelona when he was killed, have now filed a lawsuit against the tech giants.

According to the New York Post, the complaint claims the firms have ‘for years knowingly and recklessly provided the terrorist group ISIS with accounts to use its social networks as a tool for spreading extremist propaganda, raising funds and attracting new recruits.’…

RELATED ARTICLES:

LEAK: Google Employees Defend Discrimination Against Conservatives

UK: Viewers of “jihadi websites” or “far-right propaganda” to get 15 years in prison

Eyewitness of Barcelona jihad attack: No priest came to comfort wounded, but Cardinal declared all religions peaceful

How Google and Facebook Collect Data about You and the Internet

Google and Facebook are probably the most widely used websites on the Internet. Around 70% of Internet users globally use Google as their default search engine, while Facebook already has 1.5 billion users. These two Internet giants collect enormous amounts of data every day, from many different sources. And it would be naïve on our part to think that they only make use of the data we deliberately provide them with. In reality, both Google and Facebook have their own user tracking and data collection systems that go beyond our public profiles.

Google’s Data Collection Tools

Google has penetrated every sphere of people’s online activity. Just a few services that are the most wide-spread:

  • Gmail – contains all the information about your contacts and the content of your letters. It is one of the most used email services, along with Yahoo and Hotmail.
  • Google Docs – contains tons of information about businesses and personal projects
  • Google search engine collects data from your search enquiries. It also knows, which search results you click on and how much time you spend on the search result web page.
  • Youtube – Google integration allows it to know which videos you watch and for how long, knowing a lot about your preferences.
  • Twitter – owned by Google, Twitter provides it with tons of user information

There are tons of other Google services, like Google Analytics, Google Finance, Google Apps, just to name a few. Have you ever thought about why all these services should be for free? The answer lies in the fact that the more services are free and of good quality, the more people across the globe will use them. And using a service means providing it with data. This way, Google possesses enormous layers of user data from every corner of the world.

How does it put it to use? In our digital era, information is power. First of all, Google makes a lot of money on advertising. In order for it to be effective, Google uses your search and other information to show you the ads that are most likely to work. The more Google knows about you, the more effective the advertising will be. Secondly, such data arrays allow Google to know about emerging market trends earlier than anybody else, with immense opportunities for competitive advantage. Thanks to this information, they can react to change much faster, and again, make more profit.

What Facebook Knows About You

With all the advantages global information can give you it would be unwise to think Facebook does not take advantage of the colossal amount of information it has access to.

Here are a few tools Facebook uses to track your activity:

  • Facebook cookies allow it to track your browser information, meaning everything you read here on the Internet, even when you left the Facebook page, but did not log out.
  • Facebook Connect is a plug-in that many websites use. It allows you to log in or register on that third-party website using your Facebook login and password. While this really undermines your account security, this also allows Facebook to track your third-party website activities.
  • Instagram is a great tool to track location, hobbies, activities and people involved.

Facebook tracks and makes use of all of your activity inside Facebook itself. Have you ever wondered how your news feed on Facebook works the way it does? Why the news from people you have been chatting with or whose pages you’ve been browsing are displayed first, while some people’s news are not displayed at all? And why you only see ads for your local products even though you have never indicated your place of residence in your Facebook profile?

Unfortunately, Facebook makes use of all the data about your activity on the website: who you chat with in private messages, what you write about and whose pages you prefer. Moreover, it also keeps track of how much time you spend on a certain post you are reading, and how much time it takes you to view news on certain topics. Just as in the case of Google, this information is used for profit-making purposes. The more Facebook knows about people of your age and interests, the more effective advertising could be. The power of Facebook in knowing all about us is virtually unlimited.

So, what can we do with this information? To be completely honest, nothing. We are at that point in time when quitting Facebook or Google would cut us off millions of opportunities, including staying in touch with our relatives, shopping for food or finding a job. Google and Facebook own the Earth, and there is not much you can do about it.

The only precaution could be to keep private things really private. Keep your accounts free of your private pictures or data you don’t want anybody to know about, and store commercial information about your business on some hardware in your closet. In a data-driven world like ours, it is impossible to avoid being part of the data collection pool, but it is after all a natural thing for the modern era.

Israelis file multiple lawsuits against Facebook for providing radical Islamists a platform

While Facebook is being sued for providing a platform for jihadists “involved in the ‘stabbing intifada’” against innocent Israelis, the social media giant has apparently been all too busy playing thought police by cranking down on harmless conservatives. According to “former Facebook workers,” they “routinely suppressed conservative news,” including stories that were trending on major news sites. The “news curators” were ordered to “artificially inject selected stories into the trending news mode,” even if they were unpopular.

Media and social media collusion has become the norm, to the detriment of the people, whose thoughts are being manipulated via lies by omission.

Facebook even reportedly banned a Trump supporter last May for complaining that the social media site was censoring “right wing activists,” thereby proving his point.

“Terrorism Cases Against Facebook Reach climax”, by Yonah Jeremy Bob, Jerusalem Post, March 2, 2017:

American-Israeli Richard Lakin, [sic] told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that he is “outraged” at Facebook for pretending that it has zero tolerance for terrorism.

He spoke minutes after a climactic hearing in a terrorism lawsuit against the social media giant.

Lakin was one of the original plaintiffs in a 2015 lawsuit filed by a group of 20,000 Israelis against Facebook for providing a platform for terrorists involved in the “stabbing intifada,” and demanding an injunction ordering the firm to act more forcefully against terrorist incitement on its pages.

Wednesday’s hearing was the final one in a US federal court in Brooklyn before the judge decides whether Shurat Hadin – Israel Law Center, representing the plaintiffs, has found the first-ever legal silver bullet for breaking what has been an impenetrable barrier protecting Facebook from terrorism lawsuits.

Lakin was wounded and later died from his wounds in an attack by two Palestinians armed with a knife and a gun on a Jerusalem bus in fall 2015.

The 20,000 plaintiffs’ case is combined with a $1 billion damages case on behalf of the families of five victims, including US Army veteran Taylor Force, of the terrorist group Hamas.

Facebook had filed a motion to dismiss both cases arguing that, like all prior similar terrorism cases against it, the US Communications Decency Act (1996) bars all legal claims against it for posts by third parties using its platform – a defense that has proved unbeatable to date.

Shurat Hadin has argued that Facebook was not the intended target of the Communications Decency Act, which was focused on publishing, and that the social media platform has powerful algorithms it could use to catch and take down incitement and terrorist communications.

One relatively novel issue is the NGO’s attempt to use the US Anti-Terrorism Act against Facebook and to define the company as providing material support for terrorism by letting terrorists use its platform, instead of merely accusing Facebook of failing to control incitement, a less serious charge.

Shurat Hadin has admitted that the only court decision to date on this issue, earlier in 2016, went in favor of Facebook, but has claimed that case was “plainly wrongly decided and an outlier,” since a terrorism claim, unlike an incitement claim, relates not to publishing content, but to providing services.

The argument is that even if Facebook is not actively publishing third parties’ content, it is actively providing them the service of its platform.

Avni also told the Post that he “continued to be outraged by Facebook’s behavior… While this is a lawsuit about a specific issue of law, that they shouldn’t provide services to terror organizations, there is a basic ethical question that they shouldn’t help terrorists and allow them to operate freely on their platform.”

He added, “Facebook’s lawyer started his speech saying it has zero tolerance for terror. But the big dirty secret is that they make a ton of money from it. Facebook is getting lots of traffic and selling ads – the quantity of jihadists’ traffic is big and they get a lot of money out of it.”

Shurat Hadin’s New York counsel Robert Tolchin said, “Our case transcends” the Communications Decency Act, since “we are not talking about who published a post – we are talking about who provided services to a terror organization. Most of the judge’s questions [at the hearing] focused on that tension.”

Tolchin said he thought the judge came away with a view that the issue was more complicated than being able to just simply dismiss it because of the standard Communications Decency Act argument.

Shurat Hadin Director Nitsana Darshan- Leitner said, “The terrorist stabbing attacks throughout Israel and the murder of these innocent American and Israeli victims would never have occurred without the massive wave of incitement over social media.

“Facebook believes it is entitled to make billions of dollars annually while having no obligations to police its web pages and filter out calls to murder innocent Jews worldwide,” she added….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Saudi police pack two transgender Pakistanis into a sack and beat them to death with sticks

Islamic State on killing spree of Christians in Sinai

Federal Government Authorizes Facebook, Twitter, YouTube to Censor ‘Anti-Islam’ Speech

The censorship and discrimination against voices of freedom, along with consistent failure to act against jihad advocates and recruiters, on increasingly important social media platforms has gone on long enough. We’re suing. Pamela Geller weighs in here. AFDI press release here.

“Federal Government Authorizes Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to Censor ‘Anti-Islam’ Speech; Lawsuit Filed,” American Freedom Law Center, July 13, 2016:

Today, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) under the First Amendment.

Section 230 provides immunity from lawsuits to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, thereby permitting these social media giants to engage in government-sanctioned censorship and discriminatory business practices free from legal challenge.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Jihad Watch.

As alleged in the lawsuit, Geller and Spencer, along with the organizations they run, are often subject to censorship and discrimination by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube because of Geller’s and Spencer’s beliefs and views, which Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube consider expression that is offensive to Muslims.

Such discrimination, which is largely religion-based in that these California businesses are favoring adherents of Islam over those who are not, is prohibited in many states, but particularly in California by the state’s anti-discrimination law, which is broadly construed to prohibit all forms of discrimination.  However, because of the immunity granted by the federal government, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are free to engage in their otherwise unlawful, discriminatory practices.

As set forth in the lawsuit, Section 230 of the CDA immunizes businesses such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube from civil liability for any action taken to “restrict access to or availability of material that” that they “consider[] to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

Robert Muise, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, issued the following statement:

“Section 230 of the CDA confers broad powers of censorship upon Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube officials, who can silence constitutionally protected speech and engage in discriminatory business practices with impunity by virtue of this power conferred by the federal government in violation of the First Amendment.”

Muise went on to explain:

“Section 230 is a federal statute that alters the legal relations between our clients and Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, resulting in the withdrawal from our clients of legal protections against private acts.  Consequently, per U.S. Supreme Court precedent, state action lies in our clients’ challenge under the First Amendment.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, added:

“Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have notoriously censored speech that they deem critical of Islam, thereby effectively enforcing blasphemy laws here in the United States with the assistance of the federal government.”

Yerushalmi concluded:

“It has been the top agenda item of Islamic supremacists to impose such standards on the West.  Its leading proponents are the Muslim Brotherhood’s network of Islamist activist groups in the West and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which co-sponsored, with support from Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton, a U.N. resolution which called on all nations to ban speech that could promote mere hostility to Islam.  Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are falling in line, and we seek to stop this assault on our First Amendment freedoms.”

AFLC Co-Founders and Senior Counsel Robert J. Muise and David Yerushalmi, along with the plaintiffs in this case, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, will hold a Press Call from 2:00-2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 13.  To access this press conference call, dial (641) 715-3655 and enter code 111815.

RELATED ARTICLES:

YouTube CRACKS DOWN on Diamond and Silk – Demonetizes 95% of Their Videos ‘For Supporting Trump’

Audio: Robert Spencer on Kevin McCullough Live on Black Lives Matter, the global jihad, and the Iran threat

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Why Iran Might WANT To Get Nuked After Nuking Israel

PODCAST: Orlando and the power of Social Media on Islamic Terrorism and Politics

On Saturday June 18, 2016 we interviewed journalist and author Joe Newby. Newby is co-author with investigative journalist Adina Kutnicki of the upcoming book “BANNED: How Facebook Enables Militant Islamic Jihad.”  He will discuss the book and the potential implications it has regarding the role of social networks on politics.

Learn more about the book here

Topics of Discussion:

  • How has Facebook treated articles concerning criticism of Islamic jihad?
  • What did Mark Zuckerberg discuss with Angela Merkel?
  • What legislation has been proposed to report terrorist activity on social networks?
  • Orlando and the Repercussions of FBI interviews with terrorist

and more . . .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mateen checked Facebook during his jihad massacre to see if he was trending

Orlando Terrorist Worked at Company Hired by DHS to Transport Illegal Aliens

ISIS Fighter Slaughters Parents for Refusing to Hand Over Brothers

Berlin Imam Gets 2.5 Years for Glorifying ISIS

New ISIS Video: DC, New York, Orlando to Face More Attacks

Hit ISIS So Hard They Wonder Why Allah Left Them

Missoula, MT refugee arrivals could begin in August, most will be Muslims

Do Facebook and Twitter want foes of jihad dead?

Over at PJ Media, I discuss a new example of the double standard Twitter and Facebook employ regarding those whose views they dislike:

Obaid Karki

Obaid Karki, @stsheetrock on Twitter.

The antipathy of Twitter and Facebook to conservatives is well-established. The social media giants’ hatred presumably therefore also applies to opponents of jihad terror, who are universally classified as “right-wing,” however absurd the label.

But do Twitter and Facebook draw the line at death threats against them?

The question arises because of one Obaid Karki, @stsheetrock on Twitter, who describes himself thusly:

I Ain’t Anglosexual Liberal Hippie, Neither Wolf nor Dog, I am a coyote. A Paulite Picassoic Provocateur Constitutionalist Libertarian.

Any doubt that he is quite spectacularly insane will be removed by a perusal of one or both of his incoherent and gleefully obscene websites. Karki is engaging in some bizarre parody of a deranged imam, or perhaps he is trying to make some other kind of inscrutable humor. One of his websites is titled “Obaid Karki St.Sheetrock’s Painfulpolitics Offensive Comedy Hepcat.” The offensive comedy is there, in spades.His other site is called “Suicide Bombers Magazine”, and bears this heading: “Dislaimer: we swear on Elvis’s pickled penis that ‘non-sapient beings’ I mean animals harmed during IED kahbooom.”

Hmm.

But just because Karki is insane or possibly joking doesn’t mean that he can’t be dangerous — especially if he is also making specific calls for people to be murdered.

Last Saturday, he posted this:

Robert Spencer mustn’t [be] featured but lynched from his scrotum along with Zionists scumbags, Pamela Geller, Pat Condell, Daniel Pipes, Debbie Schlussel and JIHADWATCH Jackass duo Baron Bodissey & Geert Wilders for inspiring Anders Behring Breivik to [kill] innocent students in 2011.

Actually, neither Bodissey or Wilders run Jihad Watch — I do — and I didn’t inspire Breivik to do anything, but there is no arguing with a crazy person. But what is interesting about Karki’s post, aside from his loony language, is that he posted this call for me and others to be lynched on Twitter, which has a clearly stated policy against death threats.

Per “The Twitter Rules”:

Violent threats (direct or indirect): You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.

I therefore duly reported Karki’s threat, but as of this writing, it has not been taken down (in fact, Karki has since posted it again, and has posted variants of it several times).

Maybe Twitter is just slow to deal with the large number of complaints it receives? To buy that argument, you have to buy that they have a two-year backlog.

On May 12, 2014, Karki also posted this:

Robert Spencer must be arrested and lynched along the Zionists Dumbasses Daniel Pipes, Geert Wilders and JIHADWATCH …

You can see from this 2014 Twitter exchange linked above that several people claimed they reported Karki for this threat, as did I.

Not only does Karki still have his Twitter account — while many conservatives have lost their accounts for far less — but the 2014 threat remains there.

Hold on — I misspoke above.

I meant to say you would have to buy that Twitter has a three-year backlog of death threats to police.

Here, read a Karki tweet from September 18, 2013:

Robert Spencer must be shot head not only for comparing Alnoor 24:35 to Corinthians 11:14-15 satanically but for …

So now you have an example of how Twitter responded to death threats against a political opponent.

How about Facebook?

Not only is Karki on Twitter, but he also has a Facebook page containing the same lurid and paranoid content — including the threats. He did claim he was temporarily barred this Sunday:

I am axed outta Facebook for 7 days …

… but, I just read that on his Facebook page. What exactly this axing entailed remains unclear.

At least the social media titans are consistent. The site Epoch Times reported last March:

[W]hile Twitter says it is making strong efforts to shut down terrorist accounts, activists say that not only is the microblogging company not taking down the accounts that matter, but it has even been shutting down accounts of users trying to report terrorists.

The age of Obama has featured a rapid decline in appreciation for the freedom of speech. College students and — in many, many cases — their professors routinely avow that “hate speech is not free speech.” They cannot grasp that if they get their wish allows whatever the government subjectively deems “hate speech” to be criminalized, and the foremost protection against tyranny will have been removed.

At that moment, free society literally ends….

RELATED ARTICLES:

CFR’s Max Abrahms claims Syrian jihad groups growing because they’re moderate

London, Ontario police cars marked in Arabic above Canadian flag

Glenn Beck: Fooled by Facebook?

In the wake of reports that Facebook censors conservative voices, media figure Glenn Beck met with company chairman Mark Zuckerberg and emerged from the meeting, as he put it, “convinced that Facebook is behaving appropriately and trying to do the right thing.” Nothing to see here, move along. Unfortunately, this is nonsense.

Beck admits in his article on this subject, “I am not an expert on data or AI or algorithms.” Neither am I. But the Facebook censorship in the news isn’t about artificial intelligence but human intelligence — and its biases. In fact, the focus on technology could be (I’m not implying this is the case with Beck) an effort at Machiavellian misdirection: “Watch what the machine is doing, watch the machine, so you don’t see the man behind the curtain.

I’ll get right to the point. Fraudbook employs a group of young journalists, known as “news curators,” who are empowered to manage the algorithmic results and “refine” what qualifies for the site’s “Trending Topics” section. As company vice president of search Tom Stocky put it, the curators “audit topics surfaced algorithmically: reviewers are required to accept topics that reflect real world events, and are instructed to disregard junk or duplicate topics, hoaxes, or subjects with insufficient sources.”

So already evident is a Fraudbook deception: the Trending Topics section is supposed to reflect “popularity,” not politically correctness. Who decides what constitute “real world events”? What is a “junk” topic and who defines such? Should “duplicate topics” be disregarded if that duplication reflects trends and popularity? Why should “insufficient sources” disqualify a story, given that great breakthroughs — in science and news — often begin with one person’s endeavors? (When the story becomes well known, or “popular,” other journalists investigate the matter and separate fact from fiction; this can’t happen if it’s suppressed in the first place.) And while no one wants hoaxes promoted, we could even wonder how often incredible but true stories are labeled hoaxes by credulous or biased curators.

And who are these people empowered to decide who is an unreal-world, junky, topic-duplicating, insufficiently-sourced, possible hoaxer? Gizmodo.com, which broke the recent Fraudbook story, tells us they are “a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the ‘trending’ module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site.”  LOL, c’mon, Glenn, are you gonna let these people spit down your back and tell you it’s rainin’? While tech workers are notoriously liberal, as the statistics here show, journalism majors from “Ivy League or private East Coast universities” make them look like William F. Buckley2. Fact: giving people the power to “refine” news is synonymous with human bias entering the equation.

And you cannot give young, hardcore liberal journalists from “elite” schools that power without a strong liberal bias entering the equation.

Of course, the nature of biases is that people generally aren’t aware, at least not fully, of their biases. Just consider a Guardian defense of Fraudbook. The news organ interviewed an ex-Fraudbook curator who challenged Gizmodo’s report and related, writes the paper, “that newsworthiness was determined by how often a story appeared on a list of trusted news outlets including this publication [the Guardian], the New York Times and the BBC.” Are you getting this, Glenn?

That the ex-employee and Guardian consider this exculpatory of Fraudbook tells the tale: they’re so oblivious to their own biases they consider left-wing, mainstream-media news sources “unbiased” arbiters of newsworthiness. Obviously, if you use leftist entities to “refine” your algorithmic results, you’ll get Al Gore-rhythmic results.

So as Gizmodo put it, “In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation.” Without a doubt. Liberal journalists censoring the news? Check. Institutional guidelines elevating supposed real-world events and disqualifying supposed junk? Check. Reliance upon other left-wing sources to determine real-world quality, junkiness and newsworthiness, creating a liberal echo chamber? Check. Fraudbook’s trending team couldn’t be more like a traditional newsroom if it tried.

So while a selling point of big social media is that it’s a democratic arena in which “the people” determine what’s seen and heard, it’s instead more like professional wrestling circa 1980: certainly fake but still claiming authenticity. Of course, Fraudbook has a right (at least under our system, as opposed to the statist one Zuckerberg is working to visit upon us) to adopt whatever policies it wishes. But how about some truth in advertising? Don’t claim to be presenting merely what’s “popular.”

Beck should also note that Fraudbook has been caught censoring news time and again. As the Gatestone Institute wrote in February, “It was only a few weeks ago that Facebook was forced to back down when caught permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.” Even more damning, at a UN development summit in New York in September, Zuckerberg met with German chancellor Angela Merkel. “As they sat down,” continued Gatestone, “Chancellor Merkel’s microphone, still on, recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.”

And I’m sure Merkel would describe Zuckerberg as someone who was “humble, open, and listened intently,” which, by the way, are the precise words Beck used to describe the Fraudbook figures (including Zuck) he met with. Zuck told Merkel what she wanted to hear, which happened to be the truth; and Zuck told Beck what he wanted to hear, which happened to not be. Zuck is concerned about making money and Fraudbook’s stock price, you see.

Having said this, I doubt Zuck is fully aware of the news curators’ shenanigans. Again, people, liberals especially, are often blithely unaware of emotionally satisfying biases woven into organizations. Stories of Fraudbook censorship of conservatives are legion, however. And while it involves not censorship but an effort at undermining, I have one myself.

Aside from my syndicated pieces, I write exclusive news/commentary articles for The New American (TNA), which has both a website and hard-copy magazine. And as many sites do, TNA has Fraudbook’s “Like” button at the top of every article; it indicates how many Fraudbook users read, liked the piece and chose to click the button. Well, for more than a year and ending only about a year ago, I and members of TNA’s staff noticed a strange and consistent phenomenon: likes would accumulate on a piece and then “poof!” they’d disappear with the counter having been dialed back to zero. This happened consistently across all TNA articles; in one case, one of my pieces had 30,000 likes before they were sent to the gulag.

One might consider this a glitch, but I never observed the phenomenon at any liberal/mainstream-media site. And why does it matter? Because likes are a good metric for not just popularity but also level of readership, and people are influenced by what’s popular. Make an article’s content appear unread and unpopular and people are more likely to dismiss it as a fringe view.

I always assumed, and this accords with Gizmodo’s findings, that the like-button manipulation was the work of one or two rogue (and petty) employees — who were operating in a liberal organization that would turn a blind eye to such shenanigans. Yet Beck’s thoughts are different. In a further glowing endorsement of Fraudbook, he was quoted in a May 19 Time piece as saying about his meeting with the company’s representatives, “I thought it was great. I thought they were sincere. And as I was leaving, I thought: ‘What company has done that with conservatives?’ Especially a media company.” That’s what he thought, alright. And here’s what I think: that Facebook has two faces, and one of them is seen only by big names that Zuck et al. can use for photo-ops and public-relations purposes.

And that’s likely what happened with you, Mr. Beck. You found Zuck and Company cordial — they just find you useful.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

20,000 Israelis Sue Facebook for Inciting Palestinians

The video below shows some of the incitement that led to this lawsuit. While counter-jihadists are frequently suspended or have their pages taken down altogether from Facebook, this naked incitement to hatred and murder is just fine in Zuckerbergland. No incitement to murder, no calls for violence against innocent civilians, should ever be tolerated against anyone. But when it comes to inciting violence against Israelis, it seems to be fine with almost everyone.

“20,000 Israelis sue Facebook for Palestinian incitement,” by Edna Adato, Israel Hayom, October 27, 2015:

Citing incitement against Israel, Shurat Hadin Israel Law Center on Tuesday submitted a lawsuit against Facebook in a New York court on behalf of 20,000 Israelis. The lawsuit was submitted over claims that Facebook is facilitating incitement against Israelis and encouragement to harm them.

At the onset of the current wave of terror, Shurat Hadin, which works to fight terrorism on the legal front, began a petition to recruit thousands of Israeli under the title: “Suing Facebook — Disconnecting Terror.”

The organization is asking the court in New York to issue an injunction against Facebook to remove the inciting pages, monitor the methods of incitement and block them, and hold the social networking giant responsible for allowing terrorists on its network.

“Facebook has the means to research and monitor every word that appears on its website. It cannot be that entire pages on Facebook are devoted to incitement to murder Jews and that terrorists are permitted to publish posts that become popular among their friends and encourage them to kill. It is absurd that Facebook is being transformed into a tool for supporting incitement and attacks against Jews, and we intend to put an end to it,” said Shurat Hadin.

According to the plaintiffs, “The terrorists do not come on their own. They write posts and encourage their friends to kill Jews. Facebook has been transformed into an anti-Semitic incubator for murder.”

As one example, Shurat Hadin cited the case of 19-year-old terrorist Muhannad Halabi, who wrote on his Facebook page, “I want to become a martyr,” prior to carrying out a stabbing attack the following day. Halabi stabbed Aharon Bennett and Rabbi Nehemia Lavi to death.

Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, director of Shurat Hadin, said that “for every Israeli that is sitting now at home — there is something that can be done against terror. Join us now. This action is important in the same way as actions to increase security on the ground and its goal is to stop the terror. Today, Facebook has become a haven for terrorists: They publish their actions on their Facebook pages, garner support, receive instructions and direction to murder Jews — and all this under the sponsorship of a commercial company that has the power to stop it easily. At the time that Facebook suffices with words and tells us that it intends ‘to remove inciting pages’ — the website is filling up more and more each moment with severe incitement, and it is our task to do everything to stop this.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Denmark denies citizenship to Muslim who wants to replace democracy with Islamic law

Al-Shabaab faction pledges loyalty to the Islamic State after murdering 150 Christian students

Che is Dead, Long Live Conchita: A New Rebel Icon

In addition to offering 51 gender options to its users, Facebook is also changing its male, female, and group icons in order to bring more fairness and equality among the 51 aforementioned genders. Thus, instead of the female appearing behind the male’s shoulder, she is now in front of the male, which makes hers a more equal gender.

New Facebook gender icons

The female’s new hairdo makes her look less like Darth Vader, and the group icon now features a third, metrosexual-haired silhouette that can be one of the remaining 48 genders. The Washington Post happily reports this revolutionary development as an important step towards eliminating cultural biases that have contributed to gender inequality.

Facebook Che iconUnnoticed and unreported, however, came another development in the world of Facebook icons: the appearance of a Comrade Che emoticon.

In other words, while Facebook, WaPo, and others are splitting hairs over the equality of multiple genders, along comes Che Guevara and puts them up against the wall, if only in Facebook terms. And that’s how revolutions happen in real life, too.

The website behind the Che emoticon offers this description:

“The rebel, the face of non-conformity. Che will add style to your Facebook chats and messages.”

Facebook Che iconReally? Is the face of a masculine cisgender-male person still in tune with modern times? Given that Che Guevara never questioned his sexual identity but merely accepted an assigned gender role that was expected of him by the patriarchal bourgeois society, just how much of a rebel and non-conformist was he?

Shouldn’t the new, more progressive generation also have a new, more progressive icon – a rebel who truly challenges the status quo?

Our research has led us to an ideal candidate. Meet Conchita Wurst, the Austrian Drag Queen of Eurovision, the new true face of non-conformity!

VIDEO: Conchita Wurst – Rise Like a Phoenix (Austria) 2014 LIVE Eurovision Second Semi-Final:

Please update your T-shirts, emoticons, and social media avatars. We know Che would comply!

A new rebel to replace Che
Share these PNG icons far and wide!

Che Conchita icon red Che Conchita icon black
A new rebel to replace Che

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

The Beauty of Bending Rules in a Complex World: Why pool attendants are better than bureaucrats by Isaac M. Morehouse

“We’re not checking IDs today,” the pool attendant told me.

We have a nice pool for the neighborhood, maintained with HOA dues. The homeowners association has tried different methods of monitoring who comes in to keep nonresidents from filling up the pool and squeezing out dues-paying members. A few times last summer, this was a problem. This year, a new company was hired to issue IDs and ensure that only residents use the pool. But not today.

Today the water was a bit cold and the pool wasn’t busy. The attendant realized this and didn’t hassle swimmers and sunbathers with an ID check. When he uttered those words it hit me in a flash just how profound it was. The ease with which he used common sense to bend the rules was a beautiful moment. Maybe you think I’m being dramatic, but let me offer a contrast.

A few years, ago I was in the security line at the airport with my wife. She removed her plastic baggy of size-approved liquids and gels and placed it in the container. The TSA agent picked it up and grunted, “Uh-uh.” Bewildered, I asked what the problem was. She said my wife needed to remove an item from the bag. I objected that every item was within the approved size and the bag was a recommended part of the procedure. The agent said that, according to regulations, the items are supposed to fit “comfortably” in the bag. They were pushing against the sides, ever so slightly stretching the plastic. We had to remove one. I asked her which individual item was a threat to security. She told us it didn’t matter which item was removed. The absurdity of the situation was beyond parody. There is no conceivable world in which a too-snug plastic bag of harmless toiletries could pose any possible threat to security. But it was the rule. Every bureaucrat knows rules must be followed without question.

If you’ve ever gotten a speeding ticket, as I have, for going 10 over at 3:00 a.m. on a five-lane road with no traffic, or for running a red light in a sleepy town with no cars for miles, you’ve felt the same. It’s clear that the reason for the rule — to keep drivers and pedestrians safe — is no possible explanation for its enforcement in these situations. Indeed, enforcement itself makes roads less safe due to police vehicles sticking out into the road and blocking other potential drivers. Meter maids handing out tickets for 2 minutes over in a lot surrounded by empty spaces is just as crazy. Parking meters and tickets are there to ensure spaces are available in high-demand times. What’s the point of ticketing when ample parking is available? Carding geriatrics for buying alcohol and so very many other examples of this silliness abound.

I posted a complaint to Facebook after the TSA incident. One of the commenters said, “Sure, following the letter of arbitrary laws in bad contexts is a pain, but would you rather have those agents doing whatever they want and using their own discretion on the spot?” The question becomes more poignant when you consider not just the bureaucrats armed with bad attitudes like those at the DMV but the ones armed with guns on the police force. Rule following is paramount in a bureaucracy because the alternative is also frightening.

It’s easy in the public sphere to get caught up in such debates. Is it more practical and just for government agents to use discretion in the moment when applying regulations, or for across-the-board universal application? It seems vexing: a problem without a solution. Whatever side of the debate you take feels uncomfortable. The letter of the law is oppressive and in some cases downright crazy, certainly counterproductive with respect to the law’s intended purpose; but discretion is a scary proposition as well, as many cases of selectively enforced law attest.

Outside of government, however, this is a nonproblem. When something is moved from the private, voluntary sphere to the public, coercive sphere, debates and division arise where none previously existed. The real problem is not rule following or flexibility; it’s monopoly. The absence of competition in the government sphere and all the attendant incentive problems create this unnecessary quandary.

It’s not that the police officers and TSA agents are worse people than my pool attendant; it’s that they face worse incentives. There is no metric for them to determine customer satisfaction or the value of their actions, because there is no profit-and-loss signal and no fear of losing our business. We are legally obliged to pay for and receive their service (or disservice.)

The pool attendant can be flexible with the rules when applying them strictly would annoy customers. He can become stringent when things get busy and residents complain about freeloaders. His company knows that at any time, they could lose the contract, and the only reason they are hired is to make residents happy and solve a problem. It’s the outcome that matters, and all procedures, policies, and rules are measured against that. This leaves ample room for experimentation and adaptation, with immediate feedback and accountability.

The public sector has no such flexibility because it faces no competition. The political sphere can make social and economic problems that have already been solved with incredible nuance seem unsolvable. It offers only yes-or-no, either/or, once-and-for-all-and-everywhere solutions, applied and enforced by people with almost limitless job security. It is a blunt tool, and incredibly unresponsive. It is unconcerned with outcomes and measures effectiveness only by inputs, intentions, and actions — not results.

Whether the letter of the law or individual discretion is preferable is the wrong question. Both are to be feared with state monopolized services. Neither is to be feared in competition because the choice is no longer binary but an ongoing dance of pluralistic discovery.

We’re not checking IDs today. Those five simple words reveal the beauty, complexity, and humanity of the voluntary market order.

Isaac MorehouseIsaac M. Morehouse

Isaac Morehouse is the founder and CEO of Praxis.

Was it Terrorism or “Senseless Violence” that occurred in Canada?

At 9:52 AM EDT in Ottawa long haired 32 year old Michael Zehaf Bibeau wearing a black and white scarf and dressed in black   equipped with a double-barreled shot gun, stormed Canada’s War Memorial on Capitol Hill in Ottawa. He shot and fatally wounded a member of The Honor Guard , 24 year old Pvt. Nathan  Cirllio , a reservist with the Argyll and Sutherland Regiment who was on duty with a companion  who was wounded in the attack.  According to the Toronto Globe and Mail, Zehaf-Bibeau was considered to have been “a high risk traveller and had his passport revoked”.

bibeau facebook

Michael Zehaf Bibeau : Source ISIS Tweet. For a larger view click on the image.

kevin vickers

Kevin Vickers, Sergeant at Arms,  Ottawa Parliament.

Bibeau then drove to the Parliament building in a stolen black automobile with no license tags. He ran with weapon in hand into the Parliamentary center complex apparently running past  a room where Canadian PM Harper was speaking. In the ensuing gun battle Bibeau was shot dead at approximately 10:30AM by Kevin Vickers, the Sergeant at Arms before he could barge into the Caucus room filled with various party delegation  members.  Wednesdays are busy days in Canada’s parliament as  there are also tours   for visitors.   While the Sergeant at Arms is an honorific post at the Canadian Parliament, Vickers is in charge of protection for the Parliamentary Center complex.  He was appointed  to this post in 2005. In 2009, Vickers was given an award by a  Canadian Progressive Muslim group for his unbiased multicultural  security practices. He was a trained law enforcement officer, former member of the famed Royal Canadian Mounted Police who served 25 years including stints in Canada’s Northwest Territories.

MPs gathered for the  Wednesday caucus overheard 20 to 30 shots fired. The entire parliamentary district, several embassies , including the US , and  the  nearby Rideau  Mall Center remained  locked down, while police comb the area in search for rumored accomplices. Prime Minister Harper was escorted to safety. However, his trip to Toronto to attend a ceremony conferring an honorary Canadian Citizenship on Pakistani teenage Noble Laureate Malala Yousafzai was unavoidably cancelled.

Upon hearing the news, social media in Ottawa and Canada lit up with expressions of thoughts and prayers for the family of Pvt. Cirillo and concerns for the safety of those in Ottawa under lockdown.

ISIS immediately sent out a picture of Zehaf Bibeau.  Bibeau, has had a troubled family life and  number of convictions for possession  and distribution of drug s and parole violations. In 2011, he was arrested  in Vancouver on assault and robbery charges. In 2012 he was arrested on additional charges of making threats in Vancouver. The ferocity of the attack in Ottawa by Bibeau  indicates he was highly motivated and aggrieved. Bibeau’s  murderous actions may have been  Jihadist inspired by ISIS given his use of the terrorist group’s Twitter site.

martin couture facebook

Martin Couture-Rouleau from his Facebook page.

Then is the similar  case of  25 year old Martin Couture-Rouleau, who flouted his newly adopted Islamic Jihadist faith and its doctrine of hate towards Jews, Christians and other unbelievers in posts on his  Facebook  page .  As a result of his new found faith he succumbed to the excesses of murderous and barbaric  ISIS.  What is interesting in Couture-Rouleau’s case was that the anti-terrorism unit of the RCMP had been monitoring his social media and  chatter focusing on his intention to leave to join ISIS.  That was prompted by his parents’ calls to the police concerned about his newly adopted  views  espoused at the local mosque he attended  near Montreal.   Apparently under Canadian law there wasn’t enough evidence to connect him to a terrorist group after his arrest In July, 2014,  before boarding a flight to Turkey to join ISIS.  He was  subsequently  released to regularly meet with Police until just before   he perpetrated Monday’s vehicular murder.  Like Bibeau, following his arrest, he had his passport removed as  “a high risk traveller”. Superintendent Martine Fontaine of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said at a televised news conference:

It’s very difficult to know exactly what an individual is planning to do before a crime is committed,” Superintendent Fontaine said. “We cannot arrest someone for thinking radical thoughts; it is not a crime in Canada.

Prime Minister  Harper announced Canada’s joining  the US led Operation Inherent Resolve with a Canadian Air Force  F-18 squadron to conduct air operations against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  That triggered a spike in social media by the Islamic State calling for Jihadist wannabees to attack Canadian and US military.  Couture-Rouleau’s  jihadist  attack  culminated Monday, October 20, 2014  in his running down two Canada Force soldiers  at  a strip mall  in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec.  He killed  53 year old Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and wounded the other serviceman. Police shot and apprehended   Couture-Rouleau.  Following  today’s Ottawa attack, the Canadian federal  government issued a  temporary ban on use of many public places to prevent a repetition.  Ironically, Canadian  Public Safety Minister  Blaney raised the Canadian national terrorism threat level to “medium” on Tuesday , just prior to today’s attack in Ottawa.

In the U.S.,  today’s attack that killed a member of  the Canadian Honor Guard  at the Ottawa National War Memorial ,prompted  the Administration to bolster security at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers in Virginia’s Arlington National  Cemetery. The U.S. is concerned about the emergence of self-actualized jihadist supporters in our midst.  An example is  the prison convert  to Islam who beheaded a fellow woman employee in Moore, Oklahoma. Then this week there was the apprehension of three underage Denver area girls from  Sudan and Somali émigré families who left unannounced, boarding a flight in Colorado only to be apprehended by German police when they arrived in Frankfurt before they  could board  a connecting flight to Turkey.  Their ultimate destination was Syria to join ISIS.  Both the Canadian attacks and US one  raises the policy question about how to combat the jihadist theocratic message of ISIS. That message is anchored in the Qur’anic canon of  foundational documents and  codified  under Shariah law in the ‘sacred manual’, The Reliance of the Traveler.

President Obama  was interviewed in the Oval Office following a phone conversation with  Canadian PM Harper. He  conveyed  the collective thoughts and concerns of this country  for what Canada has endured this week.  Choosing his language carefully to avoid any  controversy over what motivates such actions , he condemned what he termed “senseless violence”.  PM Harper said that “a terrorist murdered the  soldier in cold blood”.

Mark Steyn, American-Canadian  commentator and author of the recently released  book Undocumented, was interviewed on Neal Cavuto’s Fox News program today. He said, “violence against the state isn’t “senseless”.  Steyn  thought the President’s “senseless violence”  comment  brought to mind the  equivocating  term “ workplace violence”, as  in the Moore, Oklahoma beheading and Maj. Nidal Hassan‘s murderous jihad rampage at Fort Hood in 2009. Steyn instead  put the blame  for this week’s Montreal and Ottawa  attacks  squarely on Canada’s policy of multi-culturalism that tolerates Islamic theocratic doctrine supporting the barbarity of ISIS and similar Jihadist, Salafist groups.  He noted that while ISIS beheads  captive unbelievers  and violators of  Sharia, so does Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, an ally of the U.S. in the coalition of Operation  Inherent Resolve.

David B. Harris, former planning director for the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) and columnist on counterterrorism, spoke by phone with Cavuto about  Canada’s  dilemma. He was asked  if he thought the  Ottawa  event was a terrorist attack? He suggested  that, while it required confirmation, it certainly had the appearance of one. However, Harris  said that Canada may be unprepared for more such attacks in view of the significant number of Canadians who have left to join up with ISIS.  They  include  some who have become prominent ISIS  spokespersons, who may return to foster such domestic terrorism.  He drew attention to  a  Canadian Senate  testimony by Michel Coulombe the current head of  CSIS, who  indicated that Canada could be overwhelmed by such  ISIS inspired homegrown  terrorist  threats lacking the resources and legal means to combat them.

Watch this Fox News report  video report on the shootout today inside the Canadian Parliament:

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the New English Review. The featured image is of police officers take cover near Parliament Hill following a shooting incident in Ottawa October 22, 2014. REUTERS/Chris Wattie

Islamic State hoodies, flags and caps selling on Facebook, E-Bay, Twitter, Amazon.com

MEMRI reports:

Supporters of the Islamic State (IS) are now offering merchandise featuring the organization’s symbols for sale online. The items offered for sale include hats, clothing, and jewelry, all bearing the familiar black flag associated with the IS organization and its slogan – baqiyah (“will remain forever”).

One vendor, an Indonesian named Zirah Moslem, currently uses Twitter to sell his products after his Facebook page and website were shut down in June 2014. Products bearing the IS logo had also been sighted this summer in a local shop in Istanbul.

On Facebook, several pages still advertise T-shirts, baseball caps, flags etc. with the IS black flag logo, such as the “Baqiyah creation” Facebook page,  which is run by a French IS supporter based in Toulouse, France. This French salafi is a jihadi sympathizer who enjoys paintball and boxing, according to his Facebook posts. He advertises his products as being high quality and made for the true believers. He warns against wearing the clothes bearing the sacred Muslim creed of the shahada in impure places such as bathrooms. He also posts pro-IS comments and messages on his page.

Another Indonesian vendor who runs the “Al-Faruq Islamic Store” sells his products through Facebook and Ebay. One of the page’s banners on Facebook advertises: “We sell Islamic Flags, Badges, Headbands and other stuff.”

EDITORS NOTE: Screen captures courtesy of MEMRI. For a larger view click on the image.

iscapflag

ishoodies

zirahmoslemis

 

isflag