• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

YouTube bans al-Qaeda videos - free speech ?




Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,437
How do they decide what an Al-Qaeda video is? Do they have those little logos on the bottom right hand corner of the screen (Al-Qaeda corporation)? I think not and if not then the bans will be sweeping and discretionary and influenced by the US/UK leadership and therefore censorship true and plain... Just as Wikileaks is struggling to break stories to the world about what they are doing and the leader appears to be 'hunted' to a degree (a FOX media person called for him to be treated like an illegal combatant recently.... actually obliquely suggesting that Assange is Al Qaeda) so the security services of those countries will take an interest in controlling other material too, now all they have to do is say something there is by Al-Qaeda and it disappears.

The advantage which a terrorist group has - namely it's amorphous and clandestine nature - has been skillfully turned into a disadvantage by the US and UK, because we cannot define it or it's membership or it's goals all of these can be defined for it by the West and the label of Al Qaeda can be applied anywhere or to anything. Effectively, as far as we in the West are concerned 'who is al-Qaeda' is a question only ever answered by US/UK intel agencies - given that Al-Qaeda is like a kind of demon (one which invites paranoia and intense hostility) it has given these definitively untrustworthy and shadowy organisations great power and influence, far from taking down such videos i always suspected those organisations of being behind them, the BBC made an excellent program a few years ago called 'the power of nightmares' which explored the frightening power that the existence of groups like Al-Qaeda gives to sinister forces in Western Governments...

It's like a two party state such as America - the 'centre' is defined as being between them, so if you want to make the centre (which represents a perception of what is rational) to make it more extreme - you move both poles.. The US/UK Govts are one pole - Al Qaeda is the other, but as i said above the US/UK now have the power to define what is Al-Qaeda and what it has done - so they can move it and then themselves (ostensibly in 'response') to redefine what is 'moderate', what is 'centre' and make the world security obsessed, paranoid with a surveillance culture and limitations of civil rights and foreign policy wars going on everywhere. To me Al-Qaeda is like one of those paper gun targets that pops up everywhere beside something that the US/UK Govts can not legitimately attack but want to, the target nearby is destroyed but of course Al-Qaeda itself lives to fight another day, Youtube videos not really 'Al-Qaeda' could be one such real target.
 

Beyond_brainwashing

Active member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
208
YouTube/Google is ran out of Herzliya, the same surburb of Tel Aviv that Mossad is HQed. They constantly remove videos that point to mossad involvement in 9/11, 7/7, 3/11 Madrid etc.
 

redtoothclaw

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
85
How do they decide what an Al-Qaeda video is? Do they have those little logos on the bottom right hand corner of the screen (Al-Qaeda corporation)? I think not and if not then the bans will be sweeping and discretionary and influenced by the US/UK leadership and therefore censorship true and plain... Just as Wikileaks is struggling to break stories to the world about what they are doing and the leader appears to be 'hunted' to a degree (a FOX media person called for him to be treated like an illegal combatant recently.... actually obliquely suggesting that Assange is Al Qaeda) so the security services of those countries will take an interest in controlling other material too, now all they have to do is say something there is by Al-Qaeda and it disappears.

The advantage which a terrorist group has - namely it's amorphous and clandestine nature - has been skillfully turned into a disadvantage by the US and UK, because we cannot define it or it's membership or it's goals all of these can be defined for it by the West and the label of Al Qaeda can be applied anywhere or to anything. Effectively, as far as we in the West are concerned 'who is al-Qaeda' is a question only ever answered by US/UK intel agencies - given that Al-Qaeda is like a kind of demon (one which invites paranoia and intense hostility) it has given these definitively untrustworthy and shadowy organisations great power and influence, far from taking down such videos i always suspected those organisations of being behind them, the BBC made an excellent program a few years ago called 'the power of nightmares' which explored the frightening power that the existence of groups like Al-Qaeda gives to sinister forces in Western Governments...

It's like a two party state such as America - the 'centre' is defined as being between them, so if you want to make the centre (which represents a perception of what is rational) to make it more extreme - you move both poles.. The US/UK Govts are one pole - Al Qaeda is the other, but as i said above the US/UK now have the power to define what is Al-Qaeda and what it has done - so they can move it and then themselves (ostensibly in 'response') to redefine what is 'moderate', what is 'centre' and make the world security obsessed, paranoid with a surveillance culture and limitations of civil rights and foreign policy wars going on everywhere. To me Al-Qaeda is like one of those paper gun targets that pops up everywhere beside something that the US/UK Govts can not legitimately attack but want to, the target nearby is destroyed but of course Al-Qaeda itself lives to fight another day, Youtube videos not really 'Al-Qaeda' could be one such real target.
Al-Qaeda have used Youtube in the past to post videos showing the beheading of people they kidnapped and their bomb attacks against American and British soldiers.
There is a war for civilisation democracy you idiot.
These Islamofascist scumbags shouldn't be given a platform to spread their hate and terror.
 

The Caped Cod

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
3,575
How do they decide what an Al-Qaeda video is? Do they have those little logos on the bottom right hand corner of the screen (Al-Qaeda corporation)? I think not and if not then the bans will be sweeping and discretionary and influenced by the US/UK leadership and therefore censorship true and plain... Just as Wikileaks is struggling to break stories to the world about what they are doing and the leader appears to be 'hunted' to a degree (a FOX media person called for him to be treated like an illegal combatant recently.... actually obliquely suggesting that Assange is Al Qaeda) so the security services of those countries will take an interest in controlling other material too, now all they have to do is say something there is by Al-Qaeda and it disappears.

The advantage which a terrorist group has - namely it's amorphous and clandestine nature - has been skillfully turned into a disadvantage by the US and UK, because we cannot define it or it's membership or it's goals all of these can be defined for it by the West and the label of Al Qaeda can be applied anywhere or to anything. Effectively, as far as we in the West are concerned 'who is al-Qaeda' is a question only ever answered by US/UK intel agencies - given that Al-Qaeda is like a kind of demon (one which invites paranoia and intense hostility) it has given these definitively untrustworthy and shadowy organisations great power and influence, far from taking down such videos i always suspected those organisations of being behind them, the BBC made an excellent program a few years ago called 'the power of nightmares' which explored the frightening power that the existence of groups like Al-Qaeda gives to sinister forces in Western Governments...

It's like a two party state such as America - the 'centre' is defined as being between them, so if you want to make the centre (which represents a perception of what is rational) to make it more extreme - you move both poles.. The US/UK Govts are one pole - Al Qaeda is the other, but as i said above the US/UK now have the power to define what is Al-Qaeda and what it has done - so they can move it and then themselves (ostensibly in 'response') to redefine what is 'moderate', what is 'centre' and make the world security obsessed, paranoid with a surveillance culture and limitations of civil rights and foreign policy wars going on everywhere. To me Al-Qaeda is like one of those paper gun targets that pops up everywhere beside something that the US/UK Govts can not legitimately attack but want to, the target nearby is destroyed but of course Al-Qaeda itself lives to fight another day, Youtube videos not really 'Al-Qaeda' could be one such real target.
+1 Excellent and inciteful post.
 

ne0ica

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
8,446
YouTube begins removing al-Qaeda videos - Telegraph


I don't agree with this, so long as they identify themselves as Islamobarbarians they should be allowed to say what they want

cYp
Seriously cyberianpan, I thought you bleeding heart liberals would be too busy defending child killer rights or defending the right of paedophiles to have access to pornography in prison. Those videos preach hatred, intolerance and violence. But because they are not Catholics or Christians and are Muslims and thus a minority in the west we should protect their minority rights.
 

ne0ica

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
8,446
Al-Qaeda have used Youtube in the past to post videos showing the beheading of people they kidnapped and their bomb attacks against American and British soldiers.
There is a war for civilisation democracy you idiot.
These Islamofascist scumbags shouldn't be given a platform to spread their hate and terror.

Yes it pathetic really that you find that sort of behaviour. Al-Qaeda preaches hatred against Jews and Christians. But as they as no Catholics or Christians and as long as they don't preach hatred towards the liberals favourite victim groups like women, gays and travellers they have no problem with this bile hatred .
 

Mister men

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
2,887
Dangerous line been drawn in the sand. What's next? We don't see reports on You tube about a stray American rocket killing some innocent kids in some far flung region because You tube have decided it's not right. Who appoints the moral guardians. For the record Al-Qaeda sicken me.
 

ManOfReason

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,328
Youtube is a privately owned website, it is free to decide what shall and shall not appear on its own site - just as we are free to control the content of our own websites.
 

johntrenchard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
991
This Baroness Neville-Jones seems to be almost as fascist as Al Qaeda...


Baroness Neville-Jones, the security minister, has called on President Barack Obama's administration to "take down this hateful material" in cases where servers were based in the US. She said websites that "incite cold-blooded murder" would "categorically not be allowed in the UK".
In private comments to the institute, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, she said: "When you have incitement to murder, when you have people actively calling for the killing of their fellow citizens and when you have the means to stop that person doing so, then I believe we should act.
"Those websites would categorically not be allowed in the UK.
"They incite cold-blooded murder and as such are surely contrary to the public good."
What an amazingly stupid fcking woman.

I want these Al Qaeda types on the internet - how else can we know just how barbaric they are?
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,171
Incitement to violence tends to fall outside the scope of legitimate use of free speech usually. Otherwise, I think they shouldn't be removed.
 

yellowfish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
3,763
I find myself in strange and disturbing company.
I can see a reason for third party posters on such organisations. For instance CNN or BBC news or documentary reports should of course be posted.
But the plain fact is these terrorist organisations are guilty of murder and i don't believe that murders should be allowed to post either their propaganda or crimes on the tube.
I can see how some would feel that this is censorship, but i don't believe any criminal should be given the opportunity to gloat over his criminal act.
Prepared to say though that i am nervous about who decides who is a criminal, this is an area that may persuade me to hold my nose and say let them post.
 

Lord Muck Savage

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
1,202
YouTube begins removing al-Qaeda videos - Telegraph


I don't agree with this, so long as they identify themselves as Islamobarbarians they should be allowed to say what they want

cYp

What double think and absolute hypocrisy on your part?
So, it’s OK to afford Wog terrorists freedom of speech to incite hatred and advocate murderous attacks upon innocent Westerners?
Yet, those of us who offer mild criticism and impart informed erudite observations on multiculturalism on this forum are banned by idiots like you.
This really does take the biscuit; freedom of speech indeed?
 
Last edited:

hmmm

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
2,834
Youtube is a privately owned website, it is free to decide what shall and shall not appear on its own site - just as we are free to control the content of our own websites.
Yup, their house their rules.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,171
Yup, their house their rules.
That's hardly the point though, is it? It's one thing to say that Youtube/Google have the right to exclude whoever they wish from their website, but it's quite another to say that they should exercise that right in cases such as this.
 

hmmm

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
2,834
That's hardly the point though, is it? It's one thing to say that Youtube/Google have the right to exclude whoever they wish from their website, but it's quite another to say that they should exercise that right in cases such as this.
Why not? Do you think the have advertisers who are interested in attracting the viewers who view videos like these? They're a business, not an offshoot of the US constitution.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top