Is the issue really how to defeat Al Qaeda? Isn't it really how does Al Qaeda keep getting people, now born and raised in England, to blow themselves and other people up?

Do you really think that if it’s figured out how to deal with Al Qaeda on the internet or defeat whatever tactic developed by Al Qaeda that somehow it will determine the outcome of the war?

Is the West right or just angry? And, are they really committed to staying angry. Do they have the stomach for a prolonged war? Can a more militarily powerful West be defeated by loosely organized groups of jihadists?

Does the West even understand what the cell member in Al Qaeda thinks he's fighting for. Do you really think they are fighting for forty virgins and an oasis? Is it a question of tactics and strategy or is it a question of motivation and commitment? Can you be uncommitted and win against a guy that is so committed he’ll blow himself up. And the number of guys who will blow themselves up keeps growing and growing

Is Al Qaeda motivated by power or justice? The solution lies in why, not how. Will Americans really back oil for blood? Isn’t that what they are doing? And do they know it. Most don’t even know why. They are just angry.

The colonist was committed and willing to die. King George was just angry.

I believe we shouldnt put any restrictions on the internet because of people using it in a way the mayority feels is evil. (==very immoral))

people have claimed that millions died for our freedom (of speach). why should we give any of it up to save thousands. or maybe tens of thousands but i dont see terorism of this nature make that many more casualties, because of internet.

and maybe its worth it.. internet really scales communication and distribution of idea's up dramaticly -and often for free. we should try to prevent anything spoiling it.

Consider a substitution: if people use guns to do terrible things, what should we do? I'm constantly impressed by the simple-minded ideological reasoning I find front and center (on boing-boing). It really is astounding; your analogy is ridiculous.

BTW, I seriously doubt anyone is proposing regulating the internet in the way you imply. Take off the tinfoil (libertarian) cap for minute. The fact of the matter is that al qaeda may very well be using the internet to their advantage. What's the harm in being aware of that fact and discussing it openly? The reality of the situation is the Internet is a boon to the CIA (and the like) as much as the terrorists, because it is possible to track who uses terroristic web sites. Therefore, I doubt the intelligence community would be in favor of censoring electronic communication.

I vote for honestly discussing reality rather than your reactionary "Whatever the case, we should get ready for the next attempt to regulate speech on the Internet, an inevitable response to this idea of web-based jihad."

---

And I suppose such a silly canard as:

"The world would be so much simpler and safer if we had more restrictions, they think, though there's never been much evidence to suggest that this is the case" is based not on egregious over-generalizing but on an your extensive survey of of the history of various restrictions in all sorts of contexts?

We must fight against terrorism. There's no other way.In all battle field they choose. Internet is a good place to fight. Id

I vote for honestly discussing reality rather than your reactionary "Whatever the case, we should get ready for the next attempt to regulate speech on the Internet, an inevitable response to this idea of web-based jihad."

Reactionary... really? So you assume that restricting speech online would be progressive? How so? I may be simple-minded, as you suggest, and I'm not quite a free speech absolutist, but I think suppression of speech is generally more "reactionary" than advocating for openness.

"The world would be so much simpler and safer if we had more restrictions, they think, though there's never been much evidence to suggest that this is the case" is based not on egregious over-generalizing but on an your extensive survey of of the history of various restrictions in all sorts of contexts?

I wouldn't call it an extensive survey, but I can think of governments that were more restrictive, and they don't strike me as particularly "safe," though I suppose it depends who you were. Consider the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, China... certainly restrictive, but safer? OTOH Singapore is supposedly safer because of its restrictive governance.

I wouldn't call it an extensive survey, but I can think of governments that were more restrictive, and they don't strike me as particularly "safe," though I suppose it depends who you were. Consider the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, China... certainly restrictive, but safer? OTOH Singapore is supposedly safer because of its restrictive governance.

To all of the examples you mentioned, I'd like to add: Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, and Germany's restrictions on hate speech following WWII. All of these (yours and mine) are examples of a state using repression to squelch opposition. From the perspective of the state, this is safety--especially if the opposition is advocating revolution.

Many of these policies (Turkey and the PKK is another good example) have been successful. Only one half of the question is whether restrictions are bad of themselves. Can you really say, unequivocally, that Germany's restrictions on hate speech are bad? Even here we have restrictions on free speech concerning incitement to violence and "shouting fire" and such.

The other half of the picture -- is whom is being restricted and who is doing the restricting.

Though I thought the question here was not whether restricting speech is a good or bad thing or whether this depends on context or perspective. I thought the question we were considering was whether restricting speech creates a safer environment.