JihadWatch prepares the ground for ethnic cleansing

February 6, 2006 at 9:03 pm | Posted in Hating Hate, Hypocracy unmasked, Taking Action | 3 Comments

From Watching JihadWatch:

Rarely does hatred manifest itself in such clear forms, particularly in our country. But leave it to JihadWatch Board Vice President “Hugh Fitzgerald”:

1) ending Muslim migration to Infidel lands, which Muslims consider Dar al-Harb, and thus they are settling behind what they regard as enemy lines. An ending of migration would also signal to Muslims already present that the tolerance for outright disloyalty to the Infidel nation-state has come to an end, and that removal of threats to the way of life and physical security of those Infidels whose countries, after all, are not simply open to all who feel like coming, no matter what their attitudes, or how unlikely it is that they will ever fully accept the legitimacy of the Infidel nation-state and the laws, customs, manners of the locals, will now be routine, rather than extraordinary. This should cause some to change their ways, and lessen their aggression; others to move back to Muslim lands. And the ground will have been prepared for further measures, should those prove necessary — of the kind the Czechs thought necessary in 1946, in dealing with the Sudeten Germans.

Wait a minute? Catch that last part? Let me repeat it:

And the ground will have been prepared for further measures, should those prove necessary — of the kind the Czechs thought necessary in 1946, in dealing with the Sudeten Germans.

For the historically challenged, here is what Wikipedia says happened in 1946 to the Sudeten Germans:

From 1945 to 1948 the Sudetenland was cleansed of ethnic Germans … About 3 million Germans, almost the entire German minority of pre-War Czechoslovakia, were expelled to Germany and Austria. As a consequence, 15 000 – 30 000 (according to the official German-Czech Committee of Historians) Germans were killed or otherwise died.

Get that? Ethnic cleansing. Which, for those not in the know, is defined by Wikipedia as:

a euphemism used to refer to various policies of forcibly removing people of one ethnic group. At one end of the spectrum, it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population transfer, while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. … A similar term with the same intent was used by the Nazi administration in Germany under Adolf Hitler. … Ethnic cleansing is designated a crime against humanity in international treaties.

ROBERT SPENCER – will you now disassociate yourself and JihadWatch from “Hugh”? A person who has, on your own website and while an officer of JihadWatch, called for crimes against humanity, for population transfer, deportation, genocide against Muslims? I expect the answer is no. And that should be enough to prove the case. JihadWatch is not worth the electrons it is published with. It is a un-American hate site, no more, no less, preparing the ground for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims.


Google News

January 17, 2006 at 5:33 am | Posted in Hating Hate | Leave a comment

An article today on Guardian Unlimited discusses the inclusion of the British National party:

“As the leader of the British National party, Nick Griffin, appears on charges of inciting racial hatred after being secretly filmed by a BBC documentary team, the BNP’s news reports are being listed on Google News alongside those from organisations such as the BBC and Reuters.

But a spokeswoman for Google said today that its job was not to act as censor, and that its automated search services could not screen results.

The company acknowledges that a search may result in “link to sites that some people find objectionable, inappropriate, or offensive” but that it assumes no responsibility for the content of any site included in any search results.”

Thoughts? Should Google et al develop a sense of corporate responsibility? Or does anything go?

Our mission

January 10, 2006 at 10:05 pm | Posted in Hating Hate | Leave a comment

Until I really figure out how to use WordPress properly, I figured it would be useful for new readers to have a recap of our mission.

I started HatingHate to try to stop the support that leading Fortune 500 companies, particularly internet companies like Amazon, Google, Yahoo, eBay/Paypal, provide to hate sites on the internet.

It is truly shocking when you look at these hate sites the degree to which they are funded by online advertising systems. For example, we highlighted in this blog a site that called for Suicide Bombings against Israel. On the same page, Amazon is selling books via the Amazon affiliate program. Even when we contacted Amazon about this, nothing changed. Amazon actually says they are indifferent to the political and social message on the sites in their affiliate program.

Well, Amazon should be concerned about their brand, but that is for them to worry about. However, they also provide funding to this site! The fund the operations of people who support Suicide terrorism! How? Well, every time someone clicks on the link and buys a book, a share of the proceeds goes to the affiliate – in this case, the operator of the site.

It doesn’t just exist with terrorism. Amazon also provides funding for bigoted and hate filled sites like JihadWatch. Paypal provides funding mechanisms for similar sites. Google ads (and Yahoo and MSN) appear on hate sites. Every time someone clicks on one of those ads, the hatemongers get revenue.

Supporting the first amendment does not mean that I am ok with funding content I find objectionable, or worse. Yet, that is essentially what internet consumers are doing. Any time you buy a book from Amazon, any time you click on a Google ad, you are indirectly or directly supporting these sites. Most consumers do not realize it. It is time we brought it to the fore. Write these companies and tell them you’re tired of this! Find other hate sites supported via these mechanisms and help us put the spotlight on them!

If enough of us get together, we can make a difference.

Update on Wikipedia vs. JihadWatch

January 5, 2006 at 6:09 am | Posted in Hating Hate | Leave a comment

An update on the Wikipedia vs. JihadWatch issue. It seems that the JihadWatch folks, in defense of free speech, have removed virtually all criticism of Robert Spencer from the article. Not because it is wrong, but because it doesn’t “read well” As you have no doubt noted, I am not a particularly gifted writer, so I figured the criticisms would fit in well here. Taken directly from the now defunct Wikipedia page:

== Criticism ==

* “Spencer cherry picks few out of the hundreds verses that deal with issues of peace and war, and misrepresents Islam by arguing that the Quran directs Muslims to fight non-Muslims on the account of having different faith. He does that by obscuring both the textual and historical contexts of the verses he cites.” [http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/24568] [http://www.tharwaproject.com/index.php?option=com_keywords&task=view&id=1105&Itemid=0]

* “Spencer attributes beliefs etc to the Qur’an when in fact they are NOT from the Qur’an but tradition.” [http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=13957&p=1] Specifically, Spencer overweights the sayings of Muhammad, while ignoring the contrary verses in the Quran, even though the sayings do “not have the authority of the Qur’an and was made up long after Muhammad died.” [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17727]

* Spencer ignores non-religious motivations of conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. [http://www.thewhitepath.com/archives/2004/10/terrors_roots_not_in_islam.php]

* Spencer “falls into the Orientalist trap of trying to use Islamic legal compendiums dating back well over 600 years…to define for all times what Muslims think about a particular issue.” [http://hnn.us/articles/9005.html]

* Spencer has no formal training in Islamic studies and his works do not meet scholarly standards:

  • Spencer’s “books are not scholarly, and they do not pass the review of blind refereed evaluation practiced by university presses. They are instead supported by specific political and ideological interests through think-tanks and private foundations.are instead supported by specific political and ideological interests through think-tanks and private foundations” [http://www.unc.edu/courses/2004spring/reli/026/001/spencer.htm].

Spencer does not read classical Arabic. Hussam Ayloush, the executive director of the Southern California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) asserts no scholar can interpret the Qur’an correctly, unless thay are knowledgeable of Islamic revealtion context (”Asbab An-Nuzul”) in which the history, timing, and occasion of each verse is explained. Most of ”Asbab An-Nuzul” has not been translated to english. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6431]*Spencer has been accused of emphasizing the violent interpretations of jihad while providing comparisons to favorable interpretations of other religions, especially Christianity. [http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2003/11/differing-interpretations-of-jihad.html][http://indyweek.com/durham/2003-01-08/ae.html]

* Some Islamic-American and Arab-American groups, such as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and CAIR, have accused Spencer for inciting hatred towards Islam.

  • “CAIR-LA has learned that Robert Spencer, who operates the “Jihad Watch? Internet hate site, spoke at Temple Shalom for the Arts during a Yom Kippur event. Spencer’s website is notorious for its depiction of Islam as an inherently violent faith that is a threat to world peace.” — November 11, 2005. CAIR press release [http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=1853&theType=NR]
  • “Since 9/11, right-wing evangelical preachers such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and commentators such as Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes, have spared no effort to spread fear and hatred of Islam and the growing American Muslim community.” — American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, [http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=2153&type=100]

*Spencer has received much criticism for the views of other JihadWatch members and readers [http://blogs.salon.com/0003494/2004/10/29.html]. The fact that Spencer offers JihadWatch positions to people with more extreme stated views, and then posts articles authored by these Members, has led to Spencer being associated with, and criticised for, those extreme views. Most notably, articles written by JihadWatch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald, posted and endorsed by Spencer are seen as particularly incendiary.

Bomb at Cincinnati Mosque

December 21, 2005 at 9:49 pm | Posted in Hating Hate | Leave a comment

This is what happens when hate speech gets out of control. People start acting on the words and ideas, and bombs go off.

It it critical that we impress up on Google, eBay and the others that we won’t accept their support for these organizations!

We will either cut off the hatred at its source, by draining the swamp of support that large companies provide to hate speech, or we will have continue our march towards being a police state (also, here and here) in order to protect the safety of all of our citizens.

Riots Down Under

December 13, 2005 at 8:44 pm | Posted in Hating Hate | 6 Comments

In case you haven’t been following it, there have been riots in Australia. My understanding: It started when a couple of members of a Lebanese gang attacked some lifeguards who asked them to stop playing soccer. A day or two thereafter, 5000 or so largely “neo-Nazi’s” gathered and started rioting, attacking anyone and anything that “looked Middle Eastern”. There have been, I understand, counter riots by Australians “who look Middle Eastern”. (BTW, the descriptions are from the news articles, not my personal take.)

The riots are a tragedy that exposes the level of underground hatred and bigotry within some societies. The societies themselves are, of course, not built on hatred. But fringe groups exist everywhere.

The interesting point for our blog is the role of technology. From the CNN article:

” Police: Text-messages fan violence

The rampage will compound shock expressed Monday at Sunday’s rioting, which police said was organized by mobile phone text messages and fanned by Neo Nazi groups.”

This is why our mission on this blog is so critically important. There are consequences of online and technologically supported hatred. The cell phone companies (“the platform”) are not responsible for the SMS messages that are sent on their platform – but they sure would be responsible if, like Google and Amazon, they directly profited from the expression of the hatred contained in the messages, and if, again like Google and Amazon, they even paid money to the groups.

SMS has not really caught on in the US yet. But blogs supported by Fortune 500 companies have the potential to be our wind on hatred-fueled fire. Everyone can say what they like, but we need to demand that our dollars, as shareholders and consumers, do not support these anti-social messages.

PajamasMedia founded on hate

December 12, 2005 at 8:02 am | Posted in Hating Hate, Taking Action | 1 Comment

LittleGreenFootballs is a right-wing blog that is also one of the most hate filled locations on the internet. The targets here, like in Jihadwatch, are Muslims. These guys are a member of PajamasMedia. Actually, the guy who runs LGF is a founder… And, upon a little more investigation, it appears that JihadWatch’s site was designed by LGF. Incestuous bunch, these hate sites…

LGF is supported by Amazon and Paypal (via their fundraising systems). And, PajamasMedia, their mothership, is looking for advertisers! Anyone who does advertise with them should be told in no uncertain terms that they are supporting hatred.

Quotes from the site include:

“I’ve been fond of transfer of these subhuman sarcens for a while. Perhaps something more like targetted genocide at the religious muslims will become necesary.”

“Elimination [of Palestinians] is the only solution; I know that sounds bad, but that’s the way it is. Forced sterilization, and full occupation to keep them under control until the problem solves itself in about 50 years.”

Ethnic cleansing? Subhuman? Genocide? Wow… Amazon and Paypal must feel great supporting this stuff. To say nothing of the Republican party [I say this even though I have never in my life, ever voted Democratic. That might change as a result of this…]

See more at http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/07/14/why-is-the-republican-party-promoting-a-hate-site

Does Microsoft Support Hate?

December 9, 2005 at 6:36 am | Posted in Hating Hate | Leave a comment

Someone said to me today, in reference to this blog: isn’t this like Windows?

Their point was that these companies, Google, Amazon, etc, are providing infrastructure, just like Microsoft provides infrastructure for most of the PCs out there. If someone uses a PC to commit a crime, Microsoft isn’t responsible. More relevant to here, if someone uses MS Word and Windows to write hateful articles, Microsoft isn’t responsible. So why should other “infrastructure” providers be held responsible?

The answer is that Google, Yahoo, MSN are not Windows. They are not providing a neutral, multi-purpose service. They are actually providing REVENUE to people who conduct hate campaigns. They are associating their advertisers and their shareholders with this hate content. And they are implicitly endorsing this hate speech by providing a funding source.

Amazon is even more different. It is using hate speech to generate leads for itself, not third parties. So they are associating their brand with hate speech, and they are, again, directly funding hate speech – not merely funneling money like the search/advertising companies.
It is a weak argument, in my opinion, for Google, MSN, Yahoo, Amazon, etc, to claim that they shouldn’t be held responsible for the speech they choose to associate themselves with. They’re wrong. Just because 200,000 people are Amazon affiliates does not remove Amazon’s obligations.

They all have very explicit policies against this – I have quoted some of them in earlier posts. And, they have actually taken action in some cases – when ADVERTISERS complain in Google’s case, when a large number of activists complain in Amazon’s case. If they didn’t think it was wrong, why would they have taken action in any case? They clearly see a problem. They just don’t care. They are lazy. They are afraid of the economic consequences of doing the right thing.

Probably worst of all, they are trying to pull a sleight of hand against the public. They are trying to have it both ways. They want to benefit from the results, but claim to not be responsible for the impact. That is ethically wrong – so much for “Don’t be evil”. It is also a violation of the trust employees, consumers and advertisers have placed in these firms.

We shouldn’t let them say one thing and do another. As it stands today, Google is funding a group that calls for violent suicide attacks. Amazon is funding a group that calls for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from the US. And there are many, many more that await discovery.

And all of these companies, Google, Amazon, Yahoo, eBay – are making money for their shareholders on the back of hatred. It is time they stopped.

How Google (and Amazon) funds terror supporters

December 8, 2005 at 12:29 am | Posted in Hating Hate | Leave a comment

The Islamist website http://www.islamic-paths.org/ uses Google advertising as one of its means of support, including (and especially) in the middle of an article encouraging and sanctioning Palestinian suicide bombers.

“I believe that in such conditions those missions are a sacred duty on every capable man, and whoever is killed in such missions is a martyr, may Allah bless him with high esteem.

I call on every Palestinian not to hesitate in carrying out such operations as long as they are the only way of making Jihad and are made with an intention of sacrificing one’s life for the Sake of one’s religion and nation.”

I’ll write Google and post any response.

UPDATE: My bad, I completely missed the Amazon link on their as well. So Amazon is, once again, funding hate speech and, in this case, violence as well.

Also funny to note, incidentally, that Robert Spencer, of JihadWatch (which I called out in an earlier post) is one of the books being promoted. So these guys, who I assume have almost the opposite goals, are actually helping to support JihadWatch. The web is truly bizarre.

How Yahoo, Amazon, and eBay support hate groups.

December 6, 2005 at 6:38 am | Posted in Hating Hate, Taking Action | 1 Comment

One of the most shocking things to me, when I started looking at online hate groups, is how many of them receive some sort of support from leading internet companies. How, you ask?

Take a look at one hate site: http://www.jihadwatch.com

This is an anti-Islamic website. To establish this, here is one quote by one of their Vice President and Board Member:

“The second important goal is to stop all Moslem migration from Moslem lands, to the U.S., to Canada, to Western Europe. For obvious reasons, Moslems do not migrate to Eastern Europe and Russia. If possible, not only should migration be stopped, but life can be made more difficult, if not by the government, then by private individuals, so that Moslems will be discouraged from remaining. What do I mean? I mean that we, as private citizens, do not have to hire Moslems, we do not have to buy their goods, or make their lives, economically, more rewarding.” [Emphasis from original article] Source

and another, this one from jihadwatch itself:

“the True Believers in Islam, convinced that the Infidels are not merely dreaming of those sheep, but are those very sheep, have started to sharpen their various knives on the implied promise of the future feast.”

This site is supported by some of the leading internet companies through three mechanisms:

1) It uses Amazon’s Honor System to raise funds (Amazon makes a commission)

2) It sells books on its site via the Amazon Associates program (Amazon makes a new sale and pays the organization a commission)

3) It uses TypePad, one of the leading blogging software packages (by SixApart). TypePad is a paid service.
Note that both Amazon and SixApart have policies against this type of activity. To quote Amazon’s:

Sites that Do Not Qualify for the Amazon.com Associates Program
include:* Sites that promote sexually explicit material
* Sites that promote violence
* Sites that promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, sexual orientation or age
* Sites that promote illegal activities
* Sites that violate intellectual property rights

However, I emailed Amazon roughly 3 weeks ago about this site, and got this response:

“This web site is actually just one of over 900,000 members of the
Amazon.com Associates Program. Associates post links to Amazon.com on
their sites in exchange for a small percentage of the sales that
result when their visitors follow these special links to place an
order with us.

Please note that we do not endorse the point of view of any of our
Associates, nor would we consider ourselves sponsors of their web
sites. In fact, our Associates include prominent web sites
representing all sides of nearly every important political and social
issue of our time.”

In other words, Amazon doesn’t seem to have a problem with hate sites and groups so long as they generate revenue for them. Can you imagine ABC saying the same thing – “Note to all African-Americans: The KKK is just one of our 900,000 advertisers. We do not support cross-burning and lynching, but we are happy to take money from anyone”?
SixApart has a similar policy. Their customer service agent is much more responsive, forwarding the objection to their “Evaluation Committee”. Too soon to say what, if any, action will be taken.
Other examples abound. How about the anti-Semitic page: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/holysee.htm.

The content on this page is cited by Wikipedia as an example of Anti-Semitism. Look around the entire site and you will find more examples.

Note the Yahoo ads on the side of the referenced page? A share of the revenue from those ads supports the author/owner of the site. A share goes to Yahoo. In other words, like Amazon, Yahoo is directly generating revenue from hate sites, and helping to support them.

Another example, to round out the trio in my title, is PayPal (an eBay company). Consider Faith Freedom International, whose site http://www.faithfreedom.org, includes such examples of hate as:

“[Muslims behave] the way animals think and behave. Animals have no understanding of the Golden Rule. They live by the rule of Jungle” and “Let us eradicate Islam … Islam is the cancer of humanity.”

How can you support this organization’s mission of hate and genocide? Yup, I gave it away – donate via PayPal. And – you guessed it – they make a buck every time you do.
PayPal has very explicit rules against this: “You many not use PayPal in the purchase or sale of items or support of organizations that promote hate, violence, or racial intolerance.”

Yesterday, I wrote to PayPal to inform them of this site. I will be checking periodically to see what happens.

I don’t believe for a second that Amazon, eBay or Yahoo do this because they like hate groups. They have, in the past, removed such sites from their network.

But I do believe that they turn a blind eye to it so long as there isn’t pressure (as in the link above).

So let’s start some pressure. I will post an action tip sheet tomorrow.

In the meantime, share names of websites, and examples (QUOTES, NOT FROM RANDOM COMMENTERS, but from articles posted by the owner/representative of the site) via the comments section here.

Everyone can pick their hate site(s) to hate enough to contact Amazon, Yahoo, eBay, Google, SixApart, PajamasMedia – whoever is profiting from hate.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.