The mere fact that this group has a Twitter account may seem surprising to those who may have viewed this small, Islamic militia as being unsophisticated. That is exactly the point. War analysts think that al-Shabaab is trying to change perceptions others may have of them as being like cavemen.

One analyst says, “Al-Shabaab is using Twitter as a platform to help amplify its victories, downplay its defeats and show that it has a bead in modern technology”.

Will Oremus of Slate Magazine, claims that the U.S. government is taking this Twitter account seriously enough to attempt to shut it down.

Although al-Shabaab is obviously using the account as war propaganda, many Americans – who are not terrorists – may be following the account for educational purposes.

Students, educators, and journalists are among the many who are intrigued by the move all different groups are taking towards social media as a means of battle.

The fact that the tweets are in clear, concise English suggests that al-Shabaab is attempting to convey to the world that they are a modern force, and not afraid to battle with words.

SITE Intelligence Group, a private company that monitors extremist chatter on the internet, has identified posts on a Jihadist forum that call for the killing of Letterman for jokes he made regarding the death of a terrorist leader.

According to SITE the threat was made by Umar al-Basrawi, a “frequent commenter” that the group has tracked making comments on other Jihadist forums. The site where the threats appeared is Shumukh-al-Islam, an Al-Qaeda depository. Basrawi has over 1,200 comments on that site.

“It’s a clearing house for Al-Qaeda material. it gets the most Al-Qaeda supporters,” said Adam Raisman of SITE.

Apparently, Umar al-Basrawi didn’t like a joke that Letterman made regarding a man named Ilyas Kashmiri, a suspected Al-Qaeda leader killed in an airstrike. Here’s what the post said –

He said that Kashmiri was killed in an airstrike in Pakistan (the news was not yet reported about the leading mujahideen, and Allah knows best),” the message said. “Then, he showed his evil nature and deep hatred for Islam and Muslims, and said that Ilyas Kashmiri was killed and he joined bin Laden. Then the despicable one put his hand on his neck and demonstrated the way of slaughter!! Meaning that the Americans slaughtered Mullah Ilyas Kashmiri (we ask Allah to protect him), just as they slaughtered before him Sheikh Usama bin Laden (may Allah have mercy on him).

And the threat -

Is there not amongst you a Sayyid Nosair al-Masri (may Allah release him) to cut the tongue of this lowly Jew and shut it forever. Just as Sayyid (may Allah release him) did with the Jew Kahane.

We ask Allah to paralyze his tongue and grant the sincere monotheists his neck. O Allah, amen.

Letterman isn’t Jewish, but I’m assuming that fact is probably irrelevant to Basrawi.

Twitter is making light of the situation –

Although this isn’t the first time that Letterman’s public persona has put him in danger, it might be the most severe of the cases. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, Letterman had a notorious stalker named Margaret Mary Ray. More recently, a former Late Show producer tried to blackmail Letterman with information about his office affairs.

SITE says that they advise Letterman to exhibit same level of caution that he would use regarding a threat from an obsessed fan.

The game is called Al Qaeda Wars, and it lets users choose whether to be a terrorist or a counter-terrorist. The Game description says:

The time is now and you must choose a side in a war where each side thinks it is fighting for freedom. Put aside your humanity and enter the never ending battle that will take you around the globe to save or destroy millions of lives. You will have to decide to take the role as the Counter Terrorist Officer to save the world or fight as the Terrorist you secretly want to be. Unlock the Jihads, and take note to watch what and whom you will be asked to save and destroy, including your friends. There are no simple choices. These are the Al Qaeda Wars.

Here is an image taken from the official site of the game’s creator, Rage On Gaming:

An additional image shows a "U-Bomb" truck (which looks like a U-Haul) heading toward a real image of the Eiffel Tower. The game utilizes Google Maps, allowing users to zoom in on specific locations while launching attacks. Characters (or targets, rather) in the game have names like "Ronal Frump," "Pest Hilton," and "Simon Scowl."

Rage On Gaming says this is its first Facebook app, and warns that it’s "not suitable for everybody" because of dramatic violence. This should go over well.

There’s a lot of buzz right now about Google Latitude, the new location-based service where you opt in to the service, select which friends you’re connected to, and then have it automatically update your location. I admit that there’s a creepy factor here, and that most people will not want to let most other people know exactly where they are at any given moment.

Yet in today’s MediaPost, the concerns get SO overblown that it’s making me think Latitude’s not such a bad idea after all:

So basically, the concern is that these phones will be turned into Trojan horses. And the concern’s not with the software, it’s with the hardware.

It’s quite possible that Al Qaeda could come into your office, take your phone while you’re in the bathroom, turn it into a bomb, and make it explode when you walk into a shopping mall. But if the real concern about Google Latitude is some doomsday scenario a la Arlington Road, then maybe we can focus on more serious threats.

I do think Mr. Davies of Privacy International has had some REALLY bad cellphone repairmen.

Comments

The use of the Internet by terrorists to recruit more followers continues to alarm the government. Easy access and minimal costs make the Net an ideal conduit for all kinds of ideas, unfortunately bringing the bad along with the good.

Lieberman wants Google to do what it can to stem the flow of one particular method of distributing terrorist information. In a letter from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that Lieberman chairs, the Senator asked for help against a “multi-tiered online media operation that produces content intended to enlist followers in countries all over the world, including the United States.”

The letter also cited findings by the committee that various groups branded as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) were themselves engaged in branding activities as well.

“Searches on YouTube return dozens of videos branded with an icon or logo identifying the videos as the work of one of these Islamist terrorist organizations,” said Lieberman. “A great majority of these videos document horrific attacks on American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.”

To counter this, Lieberman wants Google to work harder at enforcing existing community guidelines on YouTube. “This should be a straightforward task since so many of the Islamist terrorist organizations brand their material with logos or icons identifying their provenance,” he said.

Jameel Theyabi, writing for Beruit-based Dar Al-Hayat, makes an impassioned plea to the Middle East to keep up with the times. His shining example of how great success can come from humble roots is Google.

He writes:

The rest of the world innovates in creating and applying knowledge to the best needs of times while we are busy applying it in excommunicating and attacking one another, as well as in condemning each other from behind the comfort of devilish aliases….

So stark is the contrast between the success story of the Google students and what they have offered to humanity in the service of science, knowledge, and intellect on the one hand, and the contributions of Mullah Omar’s students, the Taliban, or Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden in terms of murder, destruction, terrorism, and defamation of Islam.

Theyabi’s appeal seems directed at Muslim youth, often tapped for extremist actions. Instead, Theyabi says they should be applying their minds to new technologies and new ways of thinking to right their course in history.

It must be bittersweet, then, that another article proves his point: The wrong side is using said technology to further its cause. Supporters of Al-Qaeda leader Abu Sayyaf have successfully raised funds via a YouTube campaign, according an article published at MonstersAndCritics.com.

Manila police say Sayyaf enjoyed a spike in funding shortly after the Internet campaign, and police are on high alert against the threat of "bomb attacks ‘to inflict mass casualties.’"

Theyabi’s plea may be late in coming, but few would argue that it is too late.   

Though most everyone was annoyed by him, and you could hear him far beyond the designated free speech area, none would dare to trample his right to speak, and a few would engage in debate with him, or would stand across the sidewalk preaching the brilliance of David Hume instead, at competing decibels.

That’s the awkward, wonderful beauty of free speech.

But it’s not the same from country to country, or essentially from state to state, and it’s even trickier on the Web, where everything is international, and just about everything worth visiting is hosted by a larger, private entity.

They are not government entities, so they do not have to, if headquartered in the US, guarantee those inalienable rights Americans cherish, but will honor them where possible, for violating them will turn their constituents, their netizens, against them. In terms of speech, the most cherished of these inalienable rights, it’s a fine line between terms of service enforcement and censorship.

It’s an even finer line between philosophical absolutism and "just once in the name of popular condemnation." If that sounds obtuse it’s because I unsuccessfully tried to boil down something complex into a few words…where’s Hemingway when I need him? Censorship is wrong, most will agree, until a certain percentage of the population agrees what was said was heinous enough to warrant it. Free speech until the collective rejects it.

Germany doesn’t seem to care to walk these fuzzy philosophical lines. Soon after the country reportedly denied Tom Cruise a license to film because of his Scientologist evangelism, there has been a call for criminal investigation against Google and YouTube for facilitating neo-Nazi propaganda.

Not just neo-footage, but also vintage footage was uploaded by users, with anti-Semitic videos from 1940′s appearing there as well.

Everything that one might predict happened: in the comments section, most were appalled by the videos, some were neutral, based on educational and documentation reasons, and a few applauded; Google pulled the offending videos at Germany’s request; and nobody except neo-Nazis will complain because, well, nobody likes Nazis.

Al-Qaeda, too, has reportedly been taking advantage of the user-generated video craze by uploading recruiting videos to YouTube. According to this report, one lasted nearly 24 hours before YouTube took it down.

Again, nobody but terrorists are going to speak up for them.

These are extreme examples, but they are precursors to challenges ahead. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and other companies have already had their run-ins with China and censorship.

Even in America, where freedom of speech is the first among rights, there will be struggles to define its limits, where it is acceptable to speak, and how loudly. But remember this: If speech on the Internet is determined by terms of service agreements set forth by private companies not only beholden to advertisers, partners and shareholders, but also to international pressures, then there will be no real freedom of speech on the Internet.

It begins with AT&T censoring Pearl Jam, Yahoo handing over information to Chinese authorities, Google bending to every country that demands it bend. Net Neutrality isn’t just about gate-keeping, it’s about fundamental rights to speak our minds whether or not others think we should, and about other people not being able to stop us from speaking our minds. But most of all, it’s about the people keeping control of their free-speech area, and keeping it open for debate.