It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will Conspiracy Websites be Considered Extremist?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Website are next on Tony's list. Please Define 'active engagement'. Will looking at conspiracy websites count?
 



www.prisonplanet.com
The Prime Minister on Friday outlined new security measures at his monthly media briefing, with tactics on targeting extremist websites mentioned but not fleshed out as a concept.

Tony Blair said: "One other point on deportations, once the new grounds take effect, there will be a list drawn up of specific extremist websites, bookshops, networks, centres and particular organisations of concern. Active engagement with any of these will be a trigger for the Home Secretary to consider the deportation of any foreign national."




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is worrying for a few reasons: how will they track the websites? Will the government monitor ISPs? Won't this just confuse the issue between 'browsing' governmnet unapproved websites and flat out recruiting and preaching violence and hate. In troubled and paranoid times, who will define the differences?

Isn't this just another way to track dissenting citizens and lead police/officials to those who don't agree with the majority?

All along the police have been saying not to follow 'rumours' and gossip. Is this a way of restricting the sharing of information?




[edit on 9-8-2005 by nikelbee]

[edit on 9-8-2005 by asala]




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Yep - please read my OP/ED here on this. It is concerning - especially, as you have pointed out, because of the ambiguous language used in the reference.

www.atsnn.com...



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Sorry Valhall,

Did not see it! Very worrying indeed.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Dangerous news for ATs. Some may see the more wilder ATs threads and consider us extremist.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
The things to be found in extremes at "conspiracy websites" are intelligence and honesty versus denial and ignorance.

But in reality... if there are websites developed with the purpose of providing the channel of communications that conspirators in crime need to go about their mission... a different kind of conspiracy website... then I would have no problem with them going to oblivion.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Somehow I get the feeling that national governments really wish the internet genie had never been let out of the bottle and would shut the whole thing down and wonder if they will.

However, I think you can probably claim a defence in terms of 'context' browsing.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
"Extremist" is different from conspiracy. Extremist websites would be ones trying to promote harm to the government and people, conspiracy websites would be ones trying to figure out why the government is hiding an alien in it's backyard. Active means the extremist website has to be doing something against the government, and is active it's it's fight against the target.

We're safe. For now anyway.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
The websites themselves may not be considered extreme. Some of the members may be considered extreme and are being monitored by the guvmint. This is where conspiracy issues get real tricky. We all have seen what can happen when the powerful feel threatened.

It's a brave new world.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   
This is worrying for a lot of reasons. Namely because after 10 years of the existance of the 'web' as we know it, many people still don't understand its purpose. So the clear distinction between a conspiracy website where people log in as a means to entertain, discuss, argue and inform, can actually be deemed by the government as a place that inculcates ideas that are not mainstream, that do not support the biased media and the political party-line (very often one and the same). But the reality of that matter is that sites like these encourage two VERY dangerous things:

1. Independant thought
2. ATS' motto - (how to) Deny Ignorance

History is repleat with people tearing, destroying and burning down centres of knowledge. In fact, those are the first to go. Remember Socrates and his corruption of the young?

I don't think we are being paranoid here by worrying whether or not we are safe. When the time comes and enough people have been 'sacrificed' by the sanctity of our media, places like this will be first on their list.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
This is worrying indeed. Even if extremist is considered different from conspiracy for now, you know the kind of things we talk about is probably not smiled upon and appreciated by the government and they could in time attempt to spin things and widen the definitions even more to their advantage.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
"Extremist" is different from conspiracy. Extremist websites would be ones trying to promote harm to the government and people, conspiracy websites would be ones trying to figure out why the government is hiding an alien in it's backyard. Active means the extremist website has to be doing something against the government, and is active it's it's fight against the target.

We're safe. For now anyway.


Though I agree with you on your statement, all it takes is one person to say one thing to make The Powers That Be uneasy, then BAM!! we're extremists. God (and/or Goddess) forbid that someone actually speak their mind anymore. You never know who might be lurking here, doing Dubya's dirty work for him
It could even be you.....lol



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   
An update on this. They have decided to ban a London based Arabic radio station that broadcasts songs that (according to this report) 'call on Muslims to the holy war against coalition forces'.

They have decided to close down the radio station because it has 'links' to a website (Tajdeed.net) which shows videos of beheadings and dissention.

Most improbable of all is this little nugget:




"To hear jihad talk, albeit in Arabic, being broadcast out to Iraq where you are trying to do your job as a soldier, a policeman or whatever, I think it must be desperately demoralising. It should be closed down," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.


I know many disagree with anyone disagreeing with them about the war or the government, but this is the curtailing of speech pure and simple.

Do they really think that this will help things or make them worse? If you aren't allowed to dissent and criticize, that anger gets fuelled up and then you have self-righteousness to boot. Especially if you feel the government is picking on you.

The article goes on to say that Dr al-Massar, founder of the radio station will most likely be deported as well.

Do the Brits really think that getting rid of these people - sending them elsewhere, for example - where the hate is fanned and fomented 24/7 - is going to prevent attacks or increase the hatred?

Source:

media.guardian.co.uk...

[edit on 18-8-2005 by nikelbee]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Seems damned if you do damned if you don't. However, who wants the nut balls saying Well I cut his head off and this is how I did it, or watch this......
Or your Countrys next and all that sort of terror.

The only thing important on the web site terror insert is who are they and what Country are they from? After that let MI5 or our Israeli friends swing into interception.

Dallas



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join