Terrorists Move to Cyberspace 705
Dreamwalkerofyore writes "The Washington Post has an article on how Al Quaeda is now using the 'net for its new HQ. From the article: 'With laptops and DVDs, in secret hideouts and at neighborhood Internet cafes, young code-writing jihadists have sought to replicate the training, communication, planning and preaching facilities they lost in Afghanistan with countless new locations on the Internet.'"
New game plan for the war against terror (Score:5, Funny)
2) Troll with goatse.
3) ???
4) FREEDOM!
Re:New game plan for the war against terror (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Terrorists Move to Cyberspace (Score:3, Insightful)
Child porn scares weren't enough. Now you will find use of evasive technologies soon to be classified as criminal offences. TOR? Even SSH, when they want an example, or to clo
All they can do is make lame jokes. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's shocking. Most of the people who comment here are facing a serious threat to their liberty, and all they can do is make lame jokes.
--
If you support dishonesty and violence [doonesbury.com], don't say you are Christian.
I don't think he called the terrorists "free think (Score:3, Interesting)
I think he meant the people that question WHY the terrorists are such a big threat.
Am I the only person who notices that the ONLY times terrorists strike public sites outside of the warzones are when support for the war drops?
Could it be that the governments are doing this to scare the fools and sheep back in line when they start dissenting? It seems entirely too convenient that terrorists would kill the very people who disagree with the attacks on their homeland.
The communists did this too,
Re:Terrorists Move to Cyberspace (Score:3, Informative)
Motive
Opportunity
Willingness
Using the motive and willingness of Perverts to justify the restriction of teh Internet at large is poor threat analysis, and does nothing fundamental in mitigating the criminal issue. It serves the ends of those who wish to restrict public thought and opinion. This is accomplished by enlisting the aid of those unjustafiably restricted, provoking their base, emotional concerns for saftey.
If Al Qaeda
Better plan (this one is actually formatted) (Score:5, Funny)
2) Post on Slashdot (include reference to breasts)
3) Allow nature to run its course (Slashdotting)
4) Servers become anti-terror weapons
New game plan for the war against liberty (Score:3, Informative)
2) Label terrorists; play smear the queer
3) ???
4) Victory...
How long before the government disappears non-conformists with this label?
"Terrorist Web-site shut down: al-kay-duh torrents found"
Re:New game plan for the war against liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
Are there guidelines published somewhere that say when I should start acting against a government when it has become too insane? I'd like to know, other wise I'm forced to make it up.
Besides, I only said Big Bro would disappear the website. The operators probably just get a heavy-handed dose of "doing-your-country-a-service-by-shutting-up", with an appetizer of "fed-waving-a-gun-in-your-face".
I might need a tin-foil hat, but I could also use a government that lets me sleep soundly at night.
Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:5, Insightful)
Al Queda is just a cause; it's a flag that militant Islamic zealots hoist in order to feel part of a worldwide movement. They're a ragtag bunch of criminals who want to spread their message as far and wide as possible. There are no definate leaders (Bin Laden is just a spokesman), nor do they have a cohesive strategy. Therefore it makes perfect sense that they use the Internet to communicate. This isn't news. It's just another way to make us feel that a Muhammad with a Kalashnikov just might be invading an ubiquitous part of most Americans' daily lives. Pair that anxiety with most people's complete lack understanding concering the Internet (ignorance begets fear) and suddenly it becomes much easier to curb our digital liberties just a bit more. Not to mention it helps to sell Washington Post newspapers.
I mean, come on... how many headlines read "Confirmed: Terrorists using telephones to communicate"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:2, Insightful)
the columbine kids did not draw upon an all-encomapssing idealogy or fight for a cause; nor did they have outside support. The ONLY similarity is that they killed.
Re:Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:2)
Re:Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not always.
Many of those who actually carried out the attacks on 9/11 were very well-educated and recruited from universities in Europe. Mohammed Atta for one, possessed a doctorate...in Urban Planning and Preservation.
LOL (Score:5, Funny)
How Ironic.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Informative)
"In Hamburg, Atta worked on a thesis exploring the history of Aleppo's urban landscapes. It explored the general themes of the conflict between Arab civilization and modernity. Atta criticized how the modern skyscrapers and development projects in Aleppo were disrupting the fabric of that city by blocking community streets and altering the skyline. He received a high mark on his report from his German supervisor."
He had it in for skyscrapers from the begining...
Not the first time for communication methods (Score:3, Insightful)
Thirty seconds on Google shows the media has reported on how Al Queda communicates before. (Feel free to be picky about 'headlines' if you want.)
http://www.cellular.co.za/news_2002/091602-us_cust oms_agents_intercept_cell.htm [cellular.co.za]
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/31/london. tube/ [cnn.com]
SCO was right? (Score:2)
(For the slow of wit, yes, that was just a joke.)
Re:Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:3, Funny)
Confirmed: Terrorists Use Internet!
Confirmed: Terrorists Using Telephones!
Confirmed: Terrorists Highly Secretive "Triple ROT13" code Can Not Be Broken!
Confirmed: Terrorists Enjoy A Good Ice Cream!
Quick! Everyone hide! The Terrorists Are Everywhar! Oooga-Booga!
Re:Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:3, Interesting)
Confirmed: Terrorists Use Internet!
Confirmed: Terrorists Using Telephones!
Confirmed: Terrorists Highly Secretive "Triple ROT13" code Can Not Be Broken!
Confirmed: Terrorists Enjoy A Good Ice Cream!
Quick! Everyone hide! The Terrorists Are Everywhar! Oooga-Booga!
And yet, the British seem to have captured many people involved in 7/7 and the subsequent bombings.
They'll go to trial, have evidence presented aginst them in open court, defend themselves, and go to jail if found guilty.
This puni
Re:Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:3, Interesting)
You say this like it's a good sign. Shouldn't this piss you off? It took merely days to run these people down after the bombs exploded. If it was so fucking easy, why didn't they prevent it from ever happening?
At least bin Laden has proven that he's wily enough to escape the biggest manhunt in the last couple hundred years. Finding out that the WTC had been destroyed by morons, and worse, that our govern
Perfect, NSA owns the net (Score:2)
Re:Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:2)
Re:Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you understand the philosphy of their mentor, Leo Strauss, their objective is to create myths of good and evil they can use to unite disaffected Westerners behind an easily understood cause of good versus evil.
Thank you, Ms. Drury. This is, as is typical of most folks who set out to comment on Leo Strauss, indicative of someone who has either A) not read Strauss at all, and has instead substituted someone else's absurd caricature for actual reading and critical thought, or; B) has read Strauss, and yet purposefully misrepresents his writings because he makes a convenient boogeyman with which to tar people whose politics differ from your own. For those interested in the man and his actual writings, as opposed to the deep role he apparently plays in the fantasy lives of some, I commend unto you a relatively even-handed Wikipedia overview [wikipedia.org]. For those who also don't follow the "Ms. Drury" crack, mash here [wikipedia.org] for a somewhat less even-handed (but no less accurate) explanation.
The necons need Bin Laden, al-Zarqawi and al-Zawahri in the wild to demonize and terrify Americans to make Americans easier to control and manipulate....The neocons needed a new boogie man when the Soviet Union collapsed. Saddam filled the bill but badly and now he is in jail so is a write off.
And now we delve into the self-contradictory mess that is the typical crackpot spin on current events. We are presented with a conspiracy of sorts, one that is alternately composed of evil geniuses bent on some mad plan, yet who make stunningly bone-headed moves from time to time - depending, of course, on which is more convenient to the storyteller at the time. So how, pray tell, did Saddam wind up in jail? Did he miracle himself in there? If the plan was to use him as a demon to terrorize the sheep at home, doesn't actually capturing him sort of constitute blowing a big hole in your own foot? Why bother capturing him if he's so very valuable out there in the wild?
Team B took the same data the CIA had which said the Soviet Union wasn't that much of a threat, and was crumbling from within...
Jeezus fucking Christ. Who fed you this junk, the CIA? Back during the Reagan years, the CIA was most assuredly not saying any such thing about the Soviets - as late as 1985, the CIA was saying that per-capita income in the USSR was on a par with that of the United States. In fact, we now know that it was less than one-third that of the US at the time, but at the time, they sure didn't know it. It's actually hard to think of a less reliable source for info on the USSR during the Cold War than the CIA - they repeatedly and consistently gave out bad information regarding the threat capabilities of the Soviets, virtually uniformly over-estimating the long-term threat they posed. In hindsight, the collapse of the Soviet Union may well have been inevitable, but you sure wouldn't have gotten that impression if you'd been listening to the CIA during the early- to mid-1980's. I'm sure the staff revisionists at the CIA would like you to believe otherwise - and in the Reagan administration, but nevermind that - but it really just ain't so.
William Casey was a big subscriber of the Soviet Union leading a global terror network. People of the CIA tried to point out to him it was untrue, because in fact it was black propaganda the CIA itself had started.
Excuse me? The links between the Soviet Union and international terrorism are both extensive and well-documented - mash here [jr.co.il] and here [nationalreview.com] for just a small taste, and please note that the author of those two pieces is a former head of Romanian Intelligence, so spare us "explanations" of how this is more evidence of CIA nefariousness.
This
Re:Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:5, Insightful)
Strauss's writings were mostly on Greek philosophers. He didn't write that much about his theories on the modern world he injected in to neoconservatism. He mostly shunned speaking engagements, interviews, etc. When he did give interviews he didn't share the heart of his doctrine. Strauss's approach to immortality was to surround himself with a cadre of trusted and gifted students, to train them in his world view and then to have his impact on the world be made through them. Stauss's students are his real writings, not his writings. Would have been pretty stupid and counterproductive to give TV interviews describing his plans for training national leaders to manipulate the American public and to take away their excessive freedom. Duh.
"So how, pray tell, did Saddam wind up in jail?"
Dude that is so easy....
At the point Saddam was taken down Al Qaeda had displaced Saddam as the long term, persisten, evil. The problem with Al Qaeda is they are extremely hard to whack. The neocons needed an enemy they could vanquish with a blitzkrieg with their conventional military. They need a stunning victory with smart bombs, tanks racing through the desert, and "Shock and Awe" so Americans could feel good about their awesome power and like they had won a victory against the perpetrators of 9/11, that something was being done. It also was conveniently timed to help insure reelection. Iraq was a convenient conventional target.
Rousting some Al Qaeda operative out of bed in Pakistan and putting him in a dungeon now and then isn't very good theater.
Al Qaeda is going to be the long term shadow evil and danger that never goes away. Iraq, Iran and Syria are going to be the places that get whacked with conventional forces at regular intervals to make good theatre and so the necons can declare victories.
"And yet here you are, posting away on their evil and secret plans, and they haven't even kicked down your door yet, have they? How do you do it?"
Dude its early yet. If you saw Blair's speech last week he is starting the first concerted wave of outlawing websites and bookstores carrying a message the government decides it disapproves of. It will be a crime to frequent or maybe to have frequented these websites and stores.
If I lived in the U.K. some of the stuff I post here seeking to provide understanding for why Palestinians and Muslims might rationalize what they do, may well soon be illegal in the U.K. and grounds for deportation or arrest, assuming Blair rams through the laws he proposed this week.
If the U.K establishes this next step in repression then the U.S. can follow suit and leap frog it and justify it by saying see, the U.K. is already doing it so its OK if we do too.
"Learn a little history, and do a little reading on your own"
Actually I did a while ago after first seeing the BBC documentary. I was totally unaware of Team B because its never been widely advertised. I remember at the time seeing DoD security training films on this massive Soviet arms build up and imminent threat and wondering where all this propaganda was coming from. In part it was Team B, which I didn't know at the time. When you see the parallels between Team B and the Office of Special Plans, suddenly what happened in Iraq makes a whole lot more sense than it did if you don't know the historical context. Before I knew about Team B I used to rant about how crazy all the WMD and Al Qaida ties to Iraq were, and wonder how those people could be that stupid or deceitful. When you see it as long running policy to fabricate, demonize and exaggerate enemies it makes a whole lot more sense.
It also makes a lot a of sense out of the Reagan through Bush "evil empire" and "axis of evil" rhetoric.
This brand of propaganda isn't new or anything, most war time and oppressive governments indulge in it, its just enlightening to see it happening in a supposedly "Free and Democratic" country that doesn't "do such things".
Re:Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm willing to believe that, in fact, the Strauss school may well be right
Re:"nebulous" doesn't mean what you think it does (Score:3, Funny)
Ok, I won't, but don't you think that use would have been a much better word than us there?
Radical Islam and Deterrence (Score:5, Insightful)
Islam is a religion with millions of adherents who have never bombed anyone, killed anyone, threatened anyone, or attempted to take over the world and destroy Christianity in the process.
Islam is definitely engaged in an internal struggle right now, but those who condemn violence are starting to do so more forcefully [cnn.com], and the notion that the majority of Muslims want to do in America and Europe is to the best of my knowledge unsubstantiated.
The Christian Identity Movement espoused by the Aryan Nation purports to be a true interpretation of Christ's teachings. Because they call themselves Christians doesn't mean that they speak for the millions of other Christians, does it?
Sure the leaders are the same folks who run Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc... The Strategy is to take over the world, pretty simple to me.
Bin Laden hates the Saudi royal family and would love nothing better than to have it destroyed. That hardly puts them on the same side. The fact that Iran is a Shiite nation and most of the rest of the Middle East (save Iraq) is dominated by Sunnis is also a very important factor. Just as Catholics and Protestants clashed in Europe for generations, so it is with the Muslim Arabs. That doesn't mean they can't and haven't been cooperating, but they certainly don't all share the same vision of what is right for Islam, much less the entire world.
Remember that the world communist movement had a very clear ideological platform and a very clear plan. They even had two giant countries, the USSR and China, in their camp. But nope, the whole "take over the world" goal was just too difficult to obtain. Communism imploded specifically because the West successfully pursued a strategy of containment [wikipedia.org], which forced communism to slowly collapse under its own contradictions.
Because of course they haven't invaded other parts of our lives like air travel and public transportation?
They have attacked us and inflicted damage, absolutely. But the effectiveness of terrorists can be minimized, and they can be isolated and slowly choked off. Deterrence and patient police work are the key to this, as the British know.
Re:Radical Islam and Deterrence (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, apart from when they saw their religion as being offended, they were always polite and considerate. *Very* polite.
But Muslims, on the whole, seem to take their religion a LOT more seriously than *any* Christian I ever met. Outside of Jehovas Witnesses or 7th day adventists or Plymouth Brethren. But thats how extremely a Christian would have to view their faith to take it as seriously as the moderate, westernised Muslims I've known.
Not saying 'all Muslims are extremists', just pointing out the issue of 'taking it seriously'.
In the context of the Western world, laughing at matters of religion is totally normal. In the Muslim world it seems, today, to be absolutely forbidden.
Sad really. Google for "Mulla Nasrudin".
One of my favorites is when the Mulla advises a man on his deathbed to "say 'God help me. Devil help me.' You can never be too sure!"
Re:Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds a lot like another world leader I can think of
"Without the topmost leadership, Al Qaeda would be much easier to deal with"
The French said the same thing about the leadership of the Muslim insurgency in Algeria that tied them up in knots for years before they gave up and left. They created org charts of all the leaders and they made great ceremony out of crossing them off everytime they killed or captured one. They did in fact catch a lot of them but it had no effect on the insurgency. If an insurgency has popular support the ranks are always filled by new "talented leaders and planners".
Its open to debate if Al Qaeda is in fact a popular insurgency. Their fondness for and willingness to kill fellow Muslims in particular has pushed them out of the main stream of even radical Muslims. They have staged some spectacular terrorist attacks but those required a small number of fanatical followers not a real movement. They have failed miserably at one of their prime goals, toppling governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Algeria. al-Zawihiri tried for example as a member of the ring that assassinated Sadat but they never gain popular support so their coup's always fizzle. Its an interesting and little known fact but al-Zawihiri was release by the Egyptians, after being held for years for the Sadat assassination, and was sent to Pakistan to fight the CIA backed war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan along with hundreds of other jailed militants from across the Middle East.
Re:Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well given the choice between doing nothing and what the Bush and Blair administrations have done, I would have opted for doing nothing. It would have done less damage.
They could have done some things that would have been a lot more effective though:
A- Just installed armored cockpit doors in airliners. The 9/11 attack mode would have been completely eliminated at a tiny cost and without the staggering chaos, economic devestation, and evisceration of civil liberties you see in the TSA and airports today. Sure maybe terrorists could still have taken down an airliner but it would be very hard to use one as a weapon again with armored doors. So simple, so cheap, to simple, to cheap.
B. They should have invaded Afghanistan with a real army of U.S. troops and not fought it with Afghan warlords of dubious motives. They should have made a lot better effort to contain and whack hard the Taliban and Al Qaeda there. The world would have totally supported it and it would have sent the right message to heap serious retribution on the Taliban and Al Qaeda as vengence for 9/11.
C. They should have taken a completely different strategy on Pakistan instead of looking the other way as they harbor the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and doing very little when it became clear they were the worlds number 1 proliferater of nuclear weapons. If there is a center for Islamic extremism its in the middle of two supposed allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Since they are allies the U.S. has done next to nothing about the heart of the problem.
D. They should have completely stayed out of Iraq. Invading Iraq destroyed support for the U.S. in the world, and drained resources in to a quagmire that had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam was a Baathist, a secular Socialist, and Muslim only when he found it convenient. Iraq was the most secular of Arab nations and Saddam routinely and ruthlessly suppressed Islamic fundamentalism, he was more ally against Islamic fundamentalism, especially in Iran, than supporter of it. Iraqs where mustaches because Saddam persecuted people for wearing beards as a way to frustrate devout Muslims.
E. They should have never started persecuting, arbitrarily arresting or torturing Mulsim prisoners in Gitmo, Iraq and elsehere. They should have never used Rendition to snatch people for torture. This whole process is just a recruiting poster for Muslim extremist. They can point and say see what they are doing to your Muslim brothers. It would have been harder but the U.S should have maintained the moral high ground here, only prosecuted the people they could make a case against, and tried them with real due process and fair trials, not kangaroo courts like Gitmo's. Sure it would have been hard but it would have prevented rampant abuse of people who have been falsely accused and would have kept due process in tact, instead of shredding it in favor of giving arbitrary powers to the executive to arrest and detain anyone he feels like, whenever he feels like and abuse them without restraint. It would have again not demolished U.S. standing in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Re:Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:4, Informative)
There is a case in the courts now where an Iraqi general was severely beaten, shoved in a closed sleeping bag and sat on until he died of suffocation. They are charging the grunts who where there as usual, but as usual they conveniently forget to mention the CIA and Delta Force people who are there and running the torture programs The CIA apparently created a secret force of Iraqi's called the "Scorpions" who are starting to resemble a classic CIA trained death squad. They may have been the ones who actually beat and killed the general while their CIA handlers watched.
Re:Just sensationalism... move along. (Score:5, Informative)
Torture, indiscriminate slaughter, and targetted assassination is a way of life in the new Iraqi order.
Quick! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quick! (Score:2)
Sincerely,
The Internet.
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
Arabic Translators (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Arabic Translators (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they could start by hiring back the many competent translators they used to have but dumped because they were gay or lesbian?
Naaaah, that'll never happen.
Re:Arabic Translators (Score:2)
TummyX gets owned (Score:4, Informative)
Re:TummyX gets owned (Score:3, Insightful)
After their discharges, Gamble and Hicks applied for other federal jobs where they could use their language skills in the war on terrorism, but neither was hired, Gamble said.
I guess the government feels the "war on homos" is more important than the "war on terror".
The us government is decrying a shortage of translators, and yet they're busy firing homosexual translators. Makes perfect sense to me.
Re:Arabic Translators (Score:2)
Thank you,
David
Re:Arabic Translators (Score:2)
Re:Arabic Translators (Score:4, Informative)
"This is all the more reason the US govt and the CIA need to invest heavily in recruiting and training Arabic translators."
Except it's not that easy. The CIA has been griping since 2001 that, despite the massive upsurge in students taking Arabic, only about 5% of them - if that - end up competent enough to do intelligence work. With the private sector offering obscene money in comparison to a government job, you can pretty much guess what percentage of those 5% want to end up with the CIA.
I see this sort of foolishness in my department all the time. Some ponce show up for Beginning Arabic saying something like "Yeah, wanna learn, you know, 'cause of the terrorists and all". It takes all of about two weeks before they figure out that, hey, Arabic is hard, you have to actually memorize things which aren't even remotely related to English, spend about 3/4 of your study-time mastering vocabulary, and in the end still can't order a cup of coffee in Cairo. I guess we can just ask nicely if the terrorists would mind sticking to the dictionary and reference grammars.
Add to that what the linguist-lads call diglossia. Spoken Arabic has little to do with written Arabic. Want to read a Qur'an? Written Arabic it is, but you can't converse worth a hill of beans. A friend of mine, freshly finished with his M.A. in Arabic, decided to take a trip to Cairo, steps into a cab and decides to practice with a High Arabic "How are You"? The Cabbie just stared at him and blurted out "Sorry, no English".
Want to listen to a wire-tap? What's it going to be then? Cairene Arabic? Yemeni Highland Dialect? Saudi Bedouin Dialects? Palestinian? Moroccan? How about Qwayrish? I've witnessed a 3-hour long argument among an Iraqi, a Yemeni and an Egyptian about the correct Arabic word for watermelon, for Pete's sake. Each one came up with at least three words which the others hadn't even heard of. (We won't even mention that many of the "terrorists" are Iranian, Pakistani, Afghani...)
So yeah, throwing money into recruitment and training or more funding for the Defense Language Institute might help, but not much.
Re:Arabic Translators (Score:3, Insightful)
By picking a chosing who gets what freedoms, in this case the security and "anonymity" provided by the internet, a large (innocent) part of the
Yes we must take immediate action (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yes we must take immediate action (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't funny and I'm disturbed that a moderator wasted one of his points making this seem less sinister than it may turn out to be.
The Government is just looking for excuses to present to the American public to push for even tighter controls that will benefit "the war on terror" and Big Business.
Terrorists support BitTorrent and encryption. We have to eliminate this to keep you and your children safe.
AOL (Score:5, Funny)
Re:AOL (Score:3, Funny)
Oh great. Wonderful. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh great. Wonderful. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh great. Wonderful. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush was elected once.
And not by the majority of Americans.
Re:Oh great. Wonderful. (Score:2)
Does anybody else think it is sad that the population of the U.S. feels so powerless to fix the federal government that almost two-thirds of the country chose not to even bother voting? Talk about your government of the people.... It isn't
Re:Oh great. Wonderful. (Score:3, Interesting)
BFD. Neither was Clinton. Or Bush. Or Reagan. Or Carter. Come to think of it, I can't remember the last president who got a vote from the majority of eligible voters.
I don't mind that people point out the obvious that the current president didn't get a majority vote. But I do mind that people only point this out when a Republican is in office.
Re:Oh great. Wonderful. (Score:3, Insightful)
That was great. Someone mod parent "Funny", right now!
Seriously, though. Isn't it a bit of a stretch to claim that "a majority of Americans" voted for Bush when he won with, what, 51% of the vote? Maybe 52%? And now that his approval ratings are sub-Clinton, that statement is even more disingenuous than ever.
Claiming that he has been "forthright and honest" is even more of a stretch. How many justifications have we heard for the Iraq invasion? How many of them have panned out to be e
Re:Oh great. Wonderful. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is it a stretch to deem 51% as majority? Would it make any difference if his approval ratings were higher than Clinton? Would that somehow imply that his majority was any more valid?
Re:Oh great. Wonderful. (Score:2)
What's wrong with that statement? He didn't say a majority of Americans liked Bush. All he said is that a majority voted for him. A majority is, by defition, larger than half. What part of that description doesn't 51 or 52 doesn't fit?
-Grym
Justification. (Score:4, Interesting)
as an Iraqi refuge told me well before 9-11, Saddam and Bin Laden were not allies, Al Queda wants a government based on Islam, Saddam wanted a government based on Saddam.
Saddam's power base was slowly weakening, the well trained and fed troops that he had in the prior conflict were getting older, and being replaced by children who grew up undernourished, and undereducated during the Sanctions.
With Al Queda being crushed in Afghanistan, many of it's members fled into Iraq, which had the convenient situation of no being helpful to the US, while Saddam was rapidly losing control.
Consider if Saddams government collapsed without American intervention; who would be there to grab the reins of power? Islamic Extremists, backed by Al Queda, ready to bomb, murder, and terrorize anyone who wanted an actual representitive government, just as they are doing now.
The U.S. wouldn't have an excuse to intervene after the revolution, because Saddam would have been deposed, the new government would claim to represent the people, and by claiming a basis in Islam, any attack would be claimed an attack against Islam.
So, if that scenario were about to come to pass, the time to begin an occupation of Iraq would be before the revolution not after.
There is no way the U.S. government would describe their intercession as preventing the formation of a self-described 'Islamic State' as doing so would incur the wrath of far more groups than having a stated reason of "deposing a tyrant", "protecting the region", "WMD's", "Terrorists", etc.
So these other reasons were made up, and used interchangably. In case one of them proved invalid, the other reasons would still justify going to war.
The biggest surprise to me was that some covert group didn't plant WMD components in Iraq to be 'Discovered', I thought it was almost certian we would find WMD's if they existed or not.
We still fall back on the idea of pre-emptive war, and if it's wrong to kill tens of thousands of people over a 'what if'; but it sure looks like there are a lot of terrorist bomber types hanging out in Iraq that don't need Saddam to tell them to kill and terrorise people.
Fortunetly, radical Islam is dying: Terrorism is like the kid who knocks over the game board when he's losing, the philosophy of "If I can't win, then nobody wins." and the 9/11 attacks were like punching a hornets nest because you're allergic to hornets. Osama, to me, seems like a spoiled brat; rich parents, thinking he's the center of the world, he's right, everyone else is wrong, and all. If he actually had the support of the Islamic people, Al Queda would have an Army, not a few guys with boxcutters and makeshift bombs.
Re:Oh great. Wonderful. (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed! [yahoo.com]
Bush's overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving.
Re:Oh great. Wonderful. (Score:3, Insightful)
-Winston Churchill
(It's worth noting that he also said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.")
Re:Oh great. Wonderful. (Score:2)
Doesn't make it any less rediculous but the guy doesn't have a lot of options left to salvage a good reputation in history.
... Moderators? (Score:2)
Um
hurry! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:hurry! (Score:2)
Look, and be afraid. (Score:2)
Be afraid of kids in net cafes, actually you know we should just censor the whole internet. Not like it really went anywhere anyway, it's mostly child porn. Do we really need that much spam?
Terrorists and movie pirates write all the world virus's you know, that's how identity theft works, they take your credit card number online and buy guns with it. I think we should just go to walmart, it's just more safe and american.
I mean before you just had to worry about all the 50 yr
Next step.. (Score:2)
They should also replace actual destruction with playing Batallion [uic.edu] - if anything the scale is greater and they will never be shot back at.
Perfect article to prime the electorate... (Score:2, Insightful)
What will it be this time?
Copyright infringement sentences which are longer than sentences for rape?
Mandatory monitoring and archiving of all Internet communications?
Blanket ban on the use of any encryption or a mandate to escrow all the encryption keys?
A new criminal offense of "visiting subversive websites" which automagically renders the user an "enemy combatent"?
I can just hear them now
"The terrorists are using this newfangled Internet thing
I wonder... (Score:2)
--- EMERGENCY DISPATCH TO ALL CITIZENS WHO FREELY LOVE DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM: THE MINISTRY OF FEAR ADVISES YOU TO INCREASE YOUR GENERAL FEAR LEVEL TO 'ABJECT TERROR' BUT AT THIS TIME GIBBERING IS NOT ADVISED. REPEAT, GIBBERING IS *NOT* ADVISED. THAT IS ALL. ---
Yeesh. Maybe they should have thought about the fallout BEFORE they trained and armed this guy. Makes you wonder whether those dudes they
This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't new (Score:3, Informative)
Al-Quaida stands for "The Base." It was a database of terrorist organizations, maintained by Bin Laden.
Sure, it had physical manifestations, but it has, from the very start, existed as an Internet entity.
Afghanistan was merely harboring a known terrorist when he was on the run (and he has been on the run a lot longer than most of us bothered to read about him). Al-Quaida merely had troops in Afghanistan protecting him.
If there were all there, Al-Quaida business would have stopped the second that we fought them there.
Re:This isn't new (Score:5, Interesting)
This is like saying Microsoft is an Internet entity. Its true, up to a point, but like every Internet entity it requires physical infrastructure to survive. Afghanistan wasn't just harboring OBL and giving him rack space for his servers, it also provided physical security and space for terrorist training camps for that certain tactical expertise you can't quite get from playing Counterstrike (he also had a $6 million house next to the Kabul airport -- gack, I wish I lived my life "on the run" like that).
Even to the extend Al Quaeda is a "brand"/"franchise system of terror" it relies on personal, face-to-face communication between the franchisees and a semi-centralized infrastructure. The London bombers, for example, got their instructions at a face-to-face meeting in Pakistan. (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/LondonBlasts/story?id=9 40198&page=1 [go.com] )
Re:This isn't new (Score:3, Informative)
There wasn't.
Al-Quaida joined a number of terrorist organizations. The same way that a virtual company might join a number of smaller companies.
There is still face to face interraction, but that virtual company exists merely to join the smaller companies, who provide the physical stuff.
IE, this is essentially how Al-Quaida worked before.
Re:This isn't new (Score:2)
talk about folk etomology. Do you have any actual source to indicate this is the case? Or are you just repeating the speculation of others?
Re:This isn't new (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, it had physical manifestations, but it has, from the very start, existed as an Internet entity.
The name "Al Queda" dates from the late '80s early '90s. There was no Internet in Afganistan at that point to exist as an entity of.
The organization itself goes back to the late '70s early '80s, under the name Muhejadeen . It was a US-funded, US-armed guerilla army of Islamists fighting against the USSR,
And Who Invented the Internet? (Score:2, Insightful)
Social Security Security (Score:2, Insightful)
(chill, jk)
This is old news (Score:3, Funny)
So why haven't US based hackers attacked al-qaeda? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So why haven't US based hackers attacked al-qae (Score:2)
http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/jondavid.
Re:So why haven't US based hackers attacked al-qae (Score:2)
And mine is for those running GPL OS and apps, why haven't the authors cancelled their EULA?
Unless, of course, there are doubts as to Al Q's real intentions (maybe they're just a human rights group)?
Re:So why haven't US based hackers attacked al-qae (Score:2)
Re:So why haven't US based hackers attacked al-qae (Score:2)
If "crackers" were to believe terrorists had billions of dollars, or some other resource, and were sloppy at their online activities and an easy target, they just might do so.
Also, te
Re:So why haven't US based hackers attacked al-qae (Score:2)
WebMD
DrKoop
End of the Internet as we know it (Score:5, Insightful)
Using spam to disguise messages (Score:2)
Re:Using spam to disguise messages (Score:4, Funny)
Islamist Radicalism on the Web (Score:3, Interesting)
One site political observers may find interesting in light of Iraq, however, is Kavkazcenter [kavkazcenter.com] (formerly Kavkaz.org). One might consider Chechnya to be Russia's Iraq. It remains a quagmire in which any obvious means of extricating military control becomes ever more remote as time goes on and the reasons for and results of each conflict share many similarities (though Chechnya is arguably a much, much more ancient one). Like Iraq, the threat of jihadism has radically increased with "foreign occupation" as an extremely successful rallying point for it, while secular nationalism has fallen to the wayside as a dissident cause (and was, I would say, dealt a death blow when Russia killed Aslan Maskhadov, its former figurehead). If you want to read jihadism unapologetically propounded in English, in depth, in light of current events, Kavkaz Center is about as good as source as you'll find.
Counterproductive (Score:4, Informative)
I wish these rabble rousing journalists would look themselves in the mirror and realize that instead of helping the American public they are just making life harder for hard-working American immigrants. Looking for a good way to alienate American Muslims in the same way the Londoners bombers were? This seems like a good way.
MOD Partent UP (Score:3, Insightful)
They have spooked us into giving up freedom after freedom and are constantly trying to turn us against one another.
Honestly, I don't see what the journalists get out of it. Wouldn't standing up for the citizens gain more attention than falling into the party line?
In Falluja (Score:4, Interesting)
How Ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How Ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if you appreciate the irony in that statement. In the 11th Century while Christendom was beset by single-minded fundamentalism that burnt any book that wasn't the Bible, Islam was a rich and enlightened world of scholarship. From that era we get the names of most of the visible stars, the basics of modern mathematics (including zero), algorithms (an arabic word
Terror War is Info War (Score:5, Interesting)
Now that the war is on the Net, where lives are not actually on the line, we have a second chance. We're supposedly the masters of the mediasphere. We can crank out orchestrated media campaigns to actually win infowar battles, winning consumers of our brand: liberty. Of course, we have to get our message straight: drop some of this "trade our rights for security" crap that makes us look like the Christian Taliban. We have to stop torturing prisoners, invading countries "because we can", and hiding behind nonsense like "we're not as bad as Saddam".
Rounds 1 and 2 we handed to the Qaeda, preferring to stick to our old Cold War scripts. If we don't win Round 3, now that they've cashed in on popularity and financial backers around the world, we'll have lost the infowar - and we're already starting down on the mat. If we go into Round 4 friendless, outnumbered, looking evil and deeply divided inside our borders, we'll never get a chance. It'll be the theofascists by a knockout, and our steroid-inflated body will get picked clean by the vultures.
Why can't you take this article seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
The article simply seeks to disseminate information which is interesting. It contains many facts including the URLS of former websites run by Al Quaeda. It even speaks about organizations who devote all of thier time to tracking the websites of Jihadists.
Since the Washington Post is the most liberal major newspaper in the US right now I doubt they will be doing this administration any favors. I do not think that they intended to spread fear or even to imply that tighter controls on the Internet were needed. Actually I think talking about the real tacticts of Jihadists will be the best argument AGAINST tighter controls. That is because whatever restraints we make on our networks here domestically will not affect the rest of the internet and besides there are ways around even the best policies. The Internet is a network that was designed for the easy transfer of information and that is how it is being used.
I think some of the information in the article is useful in the posturing of agencies looking to track down terrorists. If people neglect to think about this channel for imformation dissemination then many things will be missed. In addition the article pointed out that Businesses who do not take thier security seriously have thier websites hacked and used by Al Quaeda operatives. I think this is the best motivation ever for companies to finally get off thier lazy behinds and lock down open servers. Getting you corporate site hacked and turned into a commercial for Jihad is not good for PR.
In conclustion I think the article was good. It was not all new information but the article pulled a lot of info that was scattered and put it in one place. I think that is also deserved to be posted on
Nothing new (Score:3, Funny)
Overplaying the benign while ignoring the threat (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not these scary terrorist webpages. Heck, I could start my own webpage tomorrow called "People's Jihad of America", or some such rubbish, then provide a link under "training" entitled "How to detonate a nuclear bomb"
The body could be something like: First you find a nuclear bomb. Bring the bomb into America. This is the tricky part because you might get caught, so we suggest trying to smuggle it in as discreetly as possible. Once you've got it in the United States, take it a city like New York or Los Angeles. You should do this because those are dense cities and the denser the city, the more people the bomb will kill. Finally, take the bomb to the center of the city because that's where most of the people live, and detonate it".
The next day, there would be news reports that "An American website affiliated with terrorist organizations published a training manual for a nuclear attack against the United States. Singling out either New York or Los Angeles for attack, the manual provides tips on how to smuggle a bomb into the country, and even instructs on the proper placement of the nuclear device to have maximum effectiveness.
Well . . . um . . . duh.
The real scary part is communication, not webpages. Anonymous emails and chat rooms abound where parent terrorist cells can disseminate orders and information to subordinate cells. Simply handwriting a note and scanning it, emailing the message as a jpg can defeat pretty much all of our best detection methods. This--which is the real threat--is all but ignored in the media.
But some yahoo puts up a website after thumbing through the Anarchist's Cookbook, and we're supposed to be scared of that.
That is it exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Intercepting terrorists messages isn't their goal. If they can't stop LA gangbangers from using the Net to communicate, they sure can't stop hard core terrorists, who are surely smart enough to use more than just code words.
What they really want to keep tabs on is the 99.9% of the Net who aren't terrorists and aren't using encryption and simple code words.
Man, I wished I could find that article!
Usurper_ii
Re:Dear WaPo, your fearmongering is pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If the guy's no good at his job, you tell him that. If he doesn't listen, you say it louder. He's not an algorithm, he's a guy, and if enough people are pissed at him, he might change. That said, if the people who are pissed at him are also mostly jerks, which is the current case, it'll have the opposite effect.
I'd rather have a president that is overreacting than one who is doing nothing so as to avoid labels like fascist.
Which sounds not that bad in the general case, but when you're dealing with a threat that kills about the same number of people as falling coconuts, it's just plain crazy.
Re:Dear WaPo, your fearmongering is pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the Constitution says exactly the opposite: the first amendment guarantees our right to criticize the government. Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Whether you like the patriot act or not, the president has a duty to do something and I'd rather have a president that is overreacting than one who is doing nothing so as to avoid labels like fascist
Actually, no -- the president's duty is not to "do something", but to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." [loc.gov] If you think fascism can't happen here, you may be right -- but only if the American people are willing to defend the Constitution even when it isn't convenient to do so. If people don't take their freedoms seriously, they will likely lose them.