The Pentagon, MMORPGs, and Catching Osama

MarkRH writes "I know, it looked like a troll to me too. But apparently a Pentagon-funded group, the Highlands Forum, is investigating the possibility of fighting terrorism by postulating that terrorist networks are similar to the online communities found in MMORPGs. By studying interaction within a community like Everquest, the military hopes to find hints on how to crack Al Qaeda." See also the "Uncloaking Terrorist Networks" post of several months back.

Comments

MMORPGs

[intermodal]

Personally, with the comments traded between gamers, i'm a little uncomfortable with anti-terrorist types studying gamers. Something that is commonly said in jest could easily be taken out of context by these government personnel and blown way out of proportion...

Re:MMORPGs

[helix400]

Something that is commonly said in jest could easily be taken out of context by these government personnel and blown way out of proportion...

Perhaps by studying jesting remarks in games, anti-terrorism investigators will better understanding real vs. joking threats in real life.

Besides, this is a study of social behavior, not an Everquest anti-terror crackdown. They're not looking for Osama bin Laden's online character.

Personally, I think it would be a blast if the feds EXPANDED their Everquest study, such as practicing their infiltrartion method by putting moles inside Everquest groups for intelligence, or secretly picking off key characters. It would add a whole new dimension to the game. =)

Re:MMORPGs

[aeronaut]

No, this is real stuff. One of the hot research topics in dynamical systems is network structures.
I think it was Stanley Milgram that did the famous "Six Degrees of Separation" experiment. People like Steve Strogatz and Duncan Watts have followed up on that with small world networks, scale free networks, etc. These network structures appear in places like the electrical power grid for southern California, the neural network of the flatworm C. Elegans, and the network of movie actors (the Kevin Bacon game.) See Duncan Watts's web site for more (and more accurate) information.

So I think studying the networks in games like Everquest is a great idea. I don't think that they think they will actually start to pick up coded messages from real terrorist cells, but rather they want to see how these people interact and connect in the network. And this is not the pentagon themselves, but a funded think tank doing the work. Big difference.

Anyway, if the Feds start busting Everquest players, I'll be laughing my ass off. But I don't expect it to happen. However, the rich structure of the networks formed in these MMORPGs has to be worth at least a look.

Regards,
Martin Melhus
(aeronaut)

Re:MMORPGs

[pcidevel]

They don't care about what stupid comment Joe Sixpack might say about fearless leader GWB.

Sure they don't, keep telling yourself that. They also don't care if you make a joke about "Burning Bushes".

Freedom of speech? What's that?

Re:MMORPGs

[zaibutsu]

This warning is about 40 years too late.

UK SF fans used to be quite involved in postal Diplomacy. One of them was late orgsanising his moves once and sent a telegram to a potential ally reading "suggest we join forces for an attack on Liverpool".

He spent the following day deep in conversation with gentlemen wearing black raincoats.

Re:MMORPGs

[arkanes]

I'm not really sure the concept of mule characters and bots translates well into real life. But I'm not the pentagon, and I don't have a million dollar budget, so what do I know.

Re:MMORPGs

[Kintanon]

Mules do translate well. Third party pickups. If 2 people are never able to meet face to face, but both have the opportunity at different times to meet the Mule, then transfers of money and items can take place. Also, there may be people in the network that aren't involved in the actual terrorism, they just hold caches of supplies/weapons/money and that's all.

Kintanon

Re:MMORPGs

[cicatrix1]

Except that implies that people still play Diablo 2, and that it was ever a good game. LOL!

Re:MMORPGs

[arkanes]

And they need to study MMORPGs to see how they make it work? Man, our army is in pretty sad shape.

Riiiight

[MattW]

Finally, the age-old question is answered:

How can we play Everquest all day and get paid for it?

I wonder..

[Anonymous Coward]

If PKers will now be called terrorists.

Doubtful

[GodHead]

I doubt terrorists have the same immeadiate and direct communication that exists in on-line games. The less communication, the less chance for discovery.

In any case, I know MMORPG players. The only thing they accomplish in the real world is living in the basement and drinking Dew. Hell set up suspected terrorists with an EQ subscription and the only they they'll blow up in orcs.

The real way to beat the Taliban...

[craenor]

Is to subject them to l337 sp34k all day. U.S. pwnz Bin L4d3n.

Not that crazy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Al-Qaeda is a loosely affiliated network of nodes trying to acheive a similar goal across large distances and online MMORPG is pretty analagous(when speaking in terms of mathematical models). I'm sure there are a few insights to be had.

-

Re:Not that crazy...

[MadFarmAnimalz]

So they should study beowulf clusters and the scientific community too?

Fine with me; anything that will burn off those defense dollars I'm happy with.

Re:Not that crazy...

[pcidevel]

So are family reunions.

But on a MMOG, the typical player has some desire to communicate (even when outside of the game) while still remaining relatively anonymous (I know I don't like my real identy to go out over the net). Quite a bit different that family reunions, but quite similar to terrorist organizations.

So is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system.

Uhh, oil != people.

So is FedEx's tracking system. Etc.

Interestingly enough, terrorists and MMOG players have to do all of their communication outside of a network designed for that task. The FedEx tracking system is a closed system that generates massive ammounts of revenue to support itself. It's quite a bit different than an Everquest guild organizing for a raid or a group of terrorists communicating plans for blowing up a building. I can see where a group of losely connected amatuers trying to communicate with anonymity while not spending money is much more analogous to terrorist networks than FedEx's tracking system.

Re:Not that crazy...

[pcidevel]

I don't see how watching Evercrack is going to be any different than watching any other coordinated information system.

Because the point isn't that they are watching a coordinated system, but they are watching to see how the system is coordinated on a shoe-string budget by a group of amatuers with no training in how to do the effort and with nothing to gain from the effort. If you can't see the difference between an EQ guild coordinating a weekend raid, and the Alaskan Pipeline, then you lack forsight..

Re:Not that crazy...

[sql*kitten]

So they should study beowulf clusters and the scientific community too?

Neither of those is a good analogy. Beowulf clusters aren't self-organizing, and scientific communities asyncronously pursue open-ended research rather than working towards a specific goal. For example, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things if a professor in Cambridge is a day late posting his article to a journal, but it very much matters if a terrorist in New York doesn't have the van where it's supposed to be at the appointed hour.

anything that will burn off those defense dollars I'm happy with.

Either those dollars should be spent on something useful, or they should returned to their rightful owners. What you're saying is that you both want to be taxed and want that money to be wasted!

Re:Not that crazy...

[MadFarmAnimalz]

I don't pay taxes; I'm not American, ma'am :)

Here's an *idea*

[swordboy]

Fight terrorism by addressing the reason *why* these people are driven a level of frustration that would cause them to commit such acts.

Ask the average Joe on the street (in the US) about why September 11th happened and you'll hear something like, "evil doer". This befuddles me. These people aren't driven by pure evil but rather extreme frustration. Until the root of their frustration is addressed, I wouldn't be surprised if this continues forever.

Re:Here's an *idea*

[spasm]

it's the 'war on terror' concept that really screws with my head - declaring war on a *technique*? way to make sure you never have to stop..

Re:Here's an *idea*

[ender81b]

These people aren't driven by pure evil but rather extreme frustration

You forgot to add "and a massive dose of ignorance and intolerance." Of course I just described fanatics of all shapes, sizes, and colors whether it be terrorists, right-wing fundamentalists, or richard stallman (sorry couldn't resist).

Re:Here's an *idea*

[ivan256]

Fight terrorism by addressing the reason *why* these people are driven a level of frustration that would cause them to commit such acts.

What do you do when one of the reasons these people are driven to frustration is that people of a certain gender are allowed freedoms that are offensive to said terrorists? Repeat that question to yourself and replace "gender" with "religion".

What do you think the reason is? What's your simple solution?

Re:Here's an *idea*

[circletimessquare]

These people aren't driven by pure evil but rather extreme frustration. Until the root of their frustration is addressed, I wouldn't be surprised if this continues forever.

osama bin laden and his organization wish to advance islamic fundamentalism as the answer to life's problems. he is frustrated in this task by the west because the west stands for a plurality of ideas, not fundamentalism, whether christian, hindu, islamic, jewish, or whatever form of fundamentalism, fundamentalism is not an acceptable basis for a government in the democratic west. that is the root of his frustration. so he attacks the west. and he attacks the west with terror, the surprise killing of civilians. there is the understanding you need. you may pursue further understanding if you like, but on the basis of these obvious truths, we have enough basis to condemn him as evil. "we" not being western christians, or even westerners, but human beings, islamic, christian, western, or otherwise.

it's still evil.

and it won't continue forever. it is only an endless cycle of violence to you if you don't believe in progress. progress means getting rid of fundamentally (no pun intended) evil people. if you do not consider someone like osama bin laden evil, whether you make a cursory effort at understanding him, or a ten year doctoral thesis level effort at understanding him, who do you think qualifies?

Re:Here's an *idea*

[kevcol]

Hear hear! I mean, really- the Germans, Japanese, British, French, Italians, etc., stopped using Oil in thier vehicles long ago! What has taken the Americans so long?

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Re:Here's an *idea*

[sean23007]

fundamentalism is not an acceptable basis for a government in the democratic west. that is the root of his frustration

Interestingly enough, that is also the root of George W. Bush's frustration.

Re:Here's an *idea*

[NDPTAL85]

The Islamic GAWD is the same as the Christian GAWD which is the same as the Jewish GAWD. I hope you weren't trying to draw a distinction between them.

Re:Here's an *idea*

[circletimessquare]

osama bin laden and his organization have reiterated their agenda of militant islamic fundamentalism time and time again.

george w. bush is the elected leader of a pluralistic democratic country. if he has private religious views that inform his opinions, those views are bound by his advisors, the judicial and legislative branches of government, and the opinion of the american people.

so not only is your assertion speculative, but even if it were true, it would be pointless.

so pray tell, what exactly is your point?

Re:Here's an *idea*

[Dannon]

Pure frustration wouldn't do it. I've been frustrated to the end of my wits and back again. We've all been.

The thing is, a segment of the Arabic Muslim population in the Middle East has been indoctrinated into believing that the cause of their frustrations is not their leaders (who are more often than not monarchs, mullahs, and dictators), but Israel (a modern nation with an elected government) and the United States (which is halfway around the world, and spends more of its GNP on charity and aid than almost any other nation around). And they've been taught two other things: One, that the afterlife has no frustrations, and two, that the more 'infidels' you kill on your way to the afterlife, the nicer it is.

I know that's not an accurate representation of Islam as a whole, but I believe it is an accurate representation of that segment of the Islamic population that breeds suicide bombers and worse.

We know why they're out to kill and terrorize. They've told us, many times. They tell us every time Hamas or Islamic Jihad takes credit for another slaughtering of civilians in Israel.

Or haven't you been listening?

In this case, the root of their frustration is a condition of life imposed upon them by their own 'leaders', and those very same 'leaders' avoid ousting by turning around and telling their people that it's our fault. And you're right, it is a problem that's going to go on until that root is addressed.

So, how do you suggest 'addressing' the oppression of a people that have been taught to hate us by their oppressors?

Re:Here's an *idea*

[Fyz]

Which probably is exactly what Bush wants... A never ending cold war on an enemy not only remote, but formless and without voice.

US citizens have an admirable quality of backing their leader in crisis situations, which he can exploit by basically doing whatever he wants...

Like making a war over oil..

Or calling anybody who disagrees with him a terrorist..

Or screwing the environmental issues(which are bad for business) by giving their much-needed funding to the military..

Re:Here's an *idea*

[jfengel]

The euphemism "war on terror" is necessary because calling it "war on Islamic terrorists" or "war on Islamic fundamentalists" would get the administration in deep, deep doodoo. Politically, it's necessary to avoid looking like they are opposed to Islam. Muslims around the world already half believe that the US really is out to war on them.

There was some talk for a while that the War on Terror would apply to anybody using terror techniques, such as the Irish Republican Army, but that's an idea that went nowhere fast. Their opponents, therefore, are primarily Muslims, but not all Muslims.

So America-bashing and Bush administration-bashing aside (and I'm not a big fan myself, having voted for the other guy), the administration is faced with the fact that a small subset of essentially very good people is committing despicable acts in the name of those good people. These people are afraid of being punished for the sins of a few. Their support is crucial, and the US in general prefers to make friends rather than enemies. This is an incredibly untenable position for the US government. I'm hard pressed to come up with a better name for the effort, even if it is an obvious euphemism.

Re:Here's an *idea*

[garyrich]

"george w. bush is the elected leader of a pluralistic democratic country. if he has private religious views that inform his opinions, those views are bound by his advisors,"

Fundamentalist idealoges.

"the judicial "

A court stacked with conservatives and about to be loaded with more fundamentalist Bush appointees.

"and legislative branches of government"

Which took as the message of the 2002 elections that being Bush's rubber stamp is a vote getter

"and the opinion of the american people."

We are doomed.......

Re:Here's an *idea*

[kevcol]

Look, the parent to my post implied it was an American problem that they run vehicles primarily on oil. Well, we all do, and automobile manufacturing is a multinational enterprise. Note too that power generation eats up quite a bit of oil as well. Everywhere.

Re:Here's an *idea*

[circletimessquare]

you don't like bush. that is ok. i didn't vote for him. i cried when the election went his way so narrowly.

furthermore, it was great proof of the stability and depth of the american commitment to democratic principles that the country didn't descend into civil war over that election, unlike how other nations might have. a peaceful transfer of power, even when that hotly contested. imagine that blessing.

but you are rather obtuse and show little understanding of democracy, and it's superior value over other forms of government if you confuse his private views with that of the policy of the united states.

they are diagonally opposite in ideals.

us policy (which is what we really are talking about, not the point of view of one man): slow to action (10 years dealing with iraq peacefully), seeking consensus (un agreement, which it got), pained if anything bad happens to civilians (or do you insist on painting american interest as hooting hollering bloodletting cowboys for the fun of it?)

al qaeda policy: act violently and suddenly out of the agenda of a fringe fundamentalist point of view.

comparing al qaeda and the us, or even george bush to osama bin laden, no matter what you think of george bush personally, is propaganda at best, and just plain stupid at worst

Re:Here's an *idea*

[circletimessquare]

if you insist on viewing all of the bounds on george w bush the man to be insufficient to filter out his point of view from the actions of the united states, pray tell, what glorious form of government have you thought up that is superior to democracy that satisfies your paranoid schizophrenia? or do you post out of cynical callowness rather than constructive observation? the value of your words should be adjusted accordingly, and that value should be zero in my view if i suppose right about your cynicism.

Re:Here's an *idea*

[circletimessquare]

pan-arabism is wonderful progress. if the us stands in the way of that, it should be severely punished.

however, you confuse history with present day. history: the us getting into bed with disgusting regimes in the cold war to advance the fight against communism (which we won, but apparently the us gets no points for that in your view). present day: most american opinions and a growing majority of legislators who look at saudi arabia with great distrust. that will filter up to us policy. democracy is slow to anger, but slowness to anger is a good thing, not bad.

the larger interest should be to reduce suffering of all peoples, american, arab, and israeli. osama bin laden, just as you suggest is interested in pan-arabism, which should reduce suffering, BUT: he wants to do it through sharia law, through theocracy. and this will reduce arab suffering how? so when the us opposes osama bin laden, does it oppose pan-arabism, or militant islamic fundamentalism? emphasis on fundamentalism, not islam. islam is a proud, passionate, beautiful religion, and a majority of muslims will tell you osama bin laden perverts islam for his causes, and does not represent them.

so now that we understand osama bin laden more thoroughly, with your help, how exactly have we been informed to change us policy on iraq? exactly, we shouldn't change us policy on iraq at all. you have proven nothing except that you would rather empathize with a disgusting terrorist than a stable prosperous, pluralistic democracy.

Re:Here's an *idea*

[circletimessquare]

:s/insightful/cynical/

Re:Here's an *idea*

[circletimessquare]

and your point is? i'm glad we have moved from wallowing in cynicism to nitpicking on details. rather than oppose rather simple and straightforward observations about the situation we find ourselves in today, why not admit that cynicism is a poor replacement for a conscience and support the americans, british, and others who are about to die so the world is safer for everyone: american, european, iraqi, chinese, the world over. progress is progress is progress. if you insist on viewing action on iraq as nothing like progress, than you have cynically divorced yourself from an understanding that progress can, and does, and will take place in this world. removing saddam hussein, even by force if necessary, can be viewed as nothing more than progress. have a conscience and contribute or at least empathize with those involved in the struggle to make this a better world, don't just sit there as a decadent child of the west in your ivory tower and look down and spit on those in the struggle merely because you lack the conviction or intellectual honesty or bravery to fight the good fight.

Re:Here's an *idea*

[garyrich]

"if you insist on viewing all of the bounds on george w bush the man to be insufficient to filter out his point of view from the actions of the united states, pray tell, what glorious form of government have you thought up that is superior to democracy that satisfies your paranoid schizophrenia? "

Democracy? I'm no expert on Switzerland (the only democracy I can think of off the top of my head) but they seem to do OK. You aren't one of those that thinks the US is one, are you? Ideally the US is a republic - which can work pretty well too. Nah, you use too many big words to be that uneducated. "glorius form of government"? hellifiknow. If I get only one bullet I'd reverse the circa 1886 court decision that granted corporations "personhood" and the rights of an individual under the constitution.

Re:Here's an *idea*

[daigu]

How about "war on Al Qaeda"? You can only "win" a war if you can identify the enemy and you can identify objectives - like kill or capture 80% of leadership, reduce cash flows of the network by 90%, eliminate all training facilities, etc. "War on terrorism" is a euphemism like "war on drugs" - which is effectively a war on the freedoms of the American people.

There was a fairly interesting interview with a group of foriegn policy experts that describe themselves as "realists" on NPR (with Ira Glass?) that make a pretty convincing argument that the very lack of definition of a "war on terror" is undermining the efforts. In the interview, these experts provided a number of interesting facts to support their position. For example, only 40% of the Al Qaeda leadership is in custody and that the network still has the capabilities to deliver devestating style attacks.

While I do not know if this is true, there seems to be every indication that the current approach is being bungled - part of that is because the objectives (and enemies) are not well-defined.

Re:Here's an *idea*

[Mac Degger]

And it's posts like these which show how little is understood.

Thing is, most of the hijackers were Saudi Arabians. Why? Because they're pissed that the US still has a huge force there, ever since the gulf war. Their reasons are more along the lines of "the US is an invading force which has setlled here"...and you know what? By many definitions, they're right. The US barged in and never left. That's one of the reasons behind OBL's crusade, and one of the reasons he gets so many Saudi's involved.

Religious fundamentalism also gets in there, but that's more of a sugar coating than anything else.

Oh, and I consider Bush to be funamentally evil, and someone who is too unstable to posses nuclear and biological weapons, too. GWB and OBL...they're just two sides of the same stupidly evil coin.

Re:Here's an *idea*

[drinkypoo]

Uh-oh, look out. Better hold it down 'cause they shut you down when you speak from your heart. Especially if you diss RMS... though that's really like invoking you know who around here with how people leap to the defense like they just got pricked in the ass. No, with a pin.

Now it is worth mentioning that America is probably just as ignorant as anyone else. Just because we have access to media doesn't mean that it's unbiased; even if you assume there ARE unbiased media sources out there, I think it's safe to say that they are not consumed by the average American. They are content to believe what they see on their local news most of the time. A few enlightened individuals (ironically, mostly former soldiers) know that our government is patently full of shit and tells the media what they're allowed to say about a war or police action or what have you, for the most part.

I do think that your dig at fundies was unnecessary...

Anyway it really is true that significant slices of these populations feel that the "decadent American life-style" is a sin against god (in whatever form they find it) and that we should die for our offenses. I think it would be stretching things to say that a majority of any population would prefer that "innocent" Americans should be killed, probably close to the same percentage here in the US who think we ought to go "nuke the ragheads" and similar shit I've heard plenty of. Of course, some dick in a turban did try to pull out in front of me in the parking lot at WinCo Foods the other night... kill the bastards!

But it's true. We run around and shit on the world, we fuck with people to our own ends, and people die; some of our citizens, but many more of other nations'. That is NOT just, and even if we are working in the name of democracy and freedom (I think it's more like money most of the time; right now we're striking a blow for operational freedom more than anything however, clearing some obstacles out of our way so we can go on uncontested.)

Re:Here's an *idea*

[susano_otter]

...here all votes are counted by hand, since this is the only way to be 100% sure about the outcome.

Technically, I think the only way to be 100% sure about the outcome would be for you to count all the votes by hand yourself, without making any errors. Counting thousands of entities manually isn't inherently more accurate than counting them mechanically, whatever the Danish government may have told you.

I imagine that the vaunted superior accuracy of Danish ballot-counting is due more to their QA policies than to their manual counting. Perhaps also the Danes have a strong sense of civic duty, which makes them ideologically more committed to an accurate count than a personally pleasing one. Since machines don't have ideologies, they'd be inferior to Danes in this respect (all other things being equal, of course).

Re:Here's an *idea*

[Apuleius]

Geez, it isn't rocket science.
This is a war to establish quite firmly that
the technique known as terrorism will not work.

Re:Here's an *idea*

[Chelloveck]

Which probably is exactly what Bush wants... A never ending cold war on an enemy not only remote, but formless and without voice.

I've been saying ever since September 12th that we'll never catch Osama bin Laden. Even if we do catch him, we won't admit to it. He's a name and face for the enemy, and he does the government more good "presumed alive and up to no good" than he does "confirmed dead". After all, if the enemy is dead, why continue the war?

Re:Here's an *idea*

[swv3752]

Jealousy and fear of losing thier way of life to over simplify. Neutron bomb? There is no simple way to solve this. We have a group fearing the loss of thier culture and are correct to fear this. Slowly they are undergoing cultural erosion. They also see us as a "Great Evil". I only see a sort of death for them, or us. I do not want to see the world under a fundamentalist Islam. I despise thier attitudes towards women and people in general.

Re:Here's an *idea*

[Gorm the DBA]

Why would a rational atheist act in anyone's interest but his or her own?

They wouldn't, necessarily...but, what's your definition of "his own interest"?

I consider myself a rational atheist, yet I support the government (although not all of it's actions), give money and time to charities of my choosing (the Kidney Foundation for the most part, others as well), and generally don't go walking down the street randomly shooting AK-47s into other people's houses, even if I want their stuff.

Why? Why would I do any of these things without "God's Word" telling me to/not to?

Let's see...collective security and a social contract ensures a higher level of safety and a better standard of living for everyone, so government is a good thing.

The money and time I give to a charity today could result in the cure for a disease that afflicts friends and family members of mine. Maybe not today, but eventually hopefully.

Again, it's the social contract...if I don't shoot into my neighbor's house, he won't shoot into mine. So my security is enhanced.

I don't see how I need ten commandments, or a Torah, or whatever, to engage in rational conduct. If anything religion has always struck me as irrational..."You must believe and Worship God...yes, I know, you can't see or hear or touch him...but if you don't, then he will punish you for all eternity". Sounds kinda like my parents telling me I had to stay in bed after dark because otherwise the bogeyman would eat me to me...

Re:Here's an *idea*

[jfengel]

I wish I could disagree with you on the point about Iraq. They keep claiming to have solid evidence, but have presented exactly none of it to the world. (Does anybody recall what happened to the secret documents they gave to various world leaders which showed why we chose Afghanistan?)

I understand very well that sources are extremely valuable, and you must protect them. That means that secret documents are usually more secret for the reasons of revealing the source than they are for the actual data they contain.

Still, this is becoming very disturbing. There have been some very anti-American articles in this thread, and it's behavior like this which encourages such. The government is proposing a war in which the proponents stand to gain very much personally.

I don't like the Bush administration, but I don't believe that they are monsters, either. I don't believe they would kill probably hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis just for the privilege of making a few million (or billion) on oil. It's a plan which involves too many people, at least one of whom must have some sort of integrity.

But I do wish that they'd give me some reason for that apparently futile hope.

[As an aside, having the US own Iraqi oil fields would cement US supremacy, so it is possible that this is part of an overarching plan to secure US power, something which would have better hope of keeping adherents than plain money. But Iraq is far away, and tankers from Iraq to the US would be very vulnerable in case of war. They'd be better off taking over Venezuela or perhaps Mexico. So I tend to discount this theory.]

As for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, I suspect that they are inextricably linked to al Quaeda. When you fight one you fight the others. Israel has done little of late to cover itself in glory, but they do seem to have the moral high ground over those who blow up school buses (even if that's not saying very much.)

The adminstration probably feels that it cannot take a stronger side against the enemies of Israel while Israel is only barely better, morally. I believe that very few Muslims actively hate the US strongly enough to be in favor of al Quaeda, but Israel is a different story. It is a major sticking point with most Arabs and Muslims.

Fighting Hamas and Islamic Jihad is hard, because it's nearly impossible to distinguish between civilians and militants. That's partly because the civilians permit themselves to be used this way, and so the line is very blurred.

The US "war on terror" does, I believe, cover these groups as well. In general it's a war on the Islamic terrorists; Basque terrorists and Irish terrorists are left out. The remaining Islamic terrorists cover a very wide body, which is all linked together. Money flows from Saddam Hussein to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. But fighting the Palestinians directly is a public relations nightmare, both because of civilian deaths and because it would tip the balance of those who only barely tolerate the US as it stands.

My opinion is that Israel should force a two-state solution on Palestine, adopting unilaterally plan that most of the non-Arab would would see as fair. When they were attacked from that state, the US would have an easier time helping them fight it, since the non-Arab would would see Israel as having already made its concessions. [Arabs and Muslims are unlikely to see any plan in which Israel still exists as fair.] But for some reason right-wingers in Israel insist on occupying some of the West Bank territory, and will not give it up.

Re:Waste of time and money

[DeltaSigma]

You might read the article.

If you do, you'll find that they merely wish to observe the social interactions of players on a massive network, as they feel that such networks somewhat mirror the dispersal of Al Quida's terrorist group.

They're not "spying," so much as they are "spectating."

I doubt we'll see any "pirates" or "hackers" picked up off of this one... That's really not the Pentagon's job.

Re:Waste of time and money

[NerdSlayer]

They'll pursue this for a while then quit - the false positives will be off the hook.

The thing is, most MMORG players in the USA are loyal Americans who'd love to help. Spying on them is just buring down the house to roast a pig.


Ungh, okay, screw read the article... read the summary! They're talking about modeling terrorist networks with MMORGs, not seeking out terrorists who play MMORGs!

Re:Waste of time and money

[TerryAtWork]

I read it and you're right, I should have read it sooner.

But I must confess that I didn't even try to read it as I assumed it had to be slashdotted.

take arafat

[ArchieBunker]

He pockets a BILLION dollars in aide money to his many bank accounts and then tells his people they are poor because of the evil west. Since you seem to be in touch with all these extremists please enlighten us why you find joy in having your children exploding in an attempt to hurt others? Notice its nobody middle aged or even old, just young kids that have been tought all their lives to hate the US. Now thats fucked up, using your children as ammunition to fight your war.

Waiting for your reply.

Re:The Army

[Dark Lord Seth]

Could make a MMPORPG about catching Osama, they've already got a propaganda FPS game...

You mean like "America's Army: Soldiers"?

Re:Waste of time and money

[NDPTAL85]

Your sig is tooo funny lol

Re:Bin Laden's EQ character

[Brendan Byrd]

They're not looking for Osama bin Laden's online character.

Still, I can't help but laugh at the thought of it:

"Sir, we've found him! He's playing EQ right now, under the character 'Jihad' as a Level 60 Shadow Knight!"

".....Damn! Look at that...he just 0wn3d that Level 60 Paladin in PvP!"

Re:The Army

[Dark Lord Seth]

Good points, but remember the game was and still is largely a recruiting tool used to get people interested into the army. You used to see army leaflets and ads in magazines, then online and FPSers are a hit, so why not make one huge Army FPS advertisement?

The game itself though is fun IMHO, because it's so much focussed on realism then any other FPS game, except maybe the Delta Force series, but I got no experience with those and it is highly unlikely that breathing in incorporated into DF. I would HATE to play a game with such emphasis on reality online though, because I'm more of the simple "blast em to kingdom come, with style" type. Combined warfare that is featured in BF1942 is far more interesting to me, at least.

Have you ever fired a 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher (MK19) off the top of a HMMWV?

No, and screw the grenade launcher, I want the hummer :) Those babies are rarer then diamonds overe here in the Netherlands and I want one!

Crickey, how stupid is this!

[Mac Degger]

There is no analogy between everquest and terrorist networks. The later work in a defined organisational structure known as cells. These cells have very specific ways of communicating which guarantee anonymity to the maximum amount of cells.

Now how does this relate to how people form a group in EQ? Well, it just doesn't. EQ players don't need that form of anonymity. They don't have different cells working together towards the same goal. While I will admit everyone who plays EQ has the same goal of 'getting more xp'...that's not the same thing, is it? You don't need (or have) all these cells interconnected, talking to each other to 'overthrow a system'.

What the pentagon will find is the mechanics of how a gamne is played...which will bear no reemblance whatsoever to how terrorist cells are organised.

But see, the whole thing is flawed

[spudwiser]

because al-queda as a terror network is a virtual network, while the Rand people are treating it like a video game. i fail to see how a group who's main purpose seems to be to fuck our (in the US) shit up can be described in language remotely similar to everquest et al. i guess you could say that they act like a bunch of 12 year old PKers. maybe they are just pkers and the whole world is a game. *hits tilde* woah.

Laughing

[Gleef]

I can just picture it, the people at the Highlands Group sitting around, clients gone for the recession, playing video games to pass the time. Then one of them goes, "Hey, the Pentagon is spending billions to fight terrorism, let's try to get them to pay us to play these games!"

And they did.

Re:Why do Arabs hate Americans ?

[Quikah]

The situation has greatly improved since the oil for food program was instituted.

Recently saw a Frontline episode where a Brit reporter toured Iraq. He went to the hospitals, went to the children's ward. Most of the children were in there for drinking untreated water. He asked the hospital administrator if they were in need of any drugs, nope. He went into a local pharmacy. Well stocked. He wandered the markets, plenty of food.

Re:Waste of time and money

[Kashif Shaikh]

Bullshit.

Why does everyone justify their actions by saying, "because of the terrorists"? They want to study you like rats for market research(just go look at how they research your habits for TV advertisements).

The US has 30 fucking million "1 metre" satellites(scary detail) to track people, and they still need to do this?

terrorist techniques:

[Snafoo]

(1) Bunny-hopping
(2) Camping
(3) Hacking the client

Re:The Army

[An Ominous Cow Erred]

A High School simulation... You mean like Tokimeki Memorial?

I can certain enjoy a high school simulation... The appeal is you can go back and do things differently. You could try being someone else, joined a different club, met a different girl, etc....

Maybe there are FPS's that would appeal to people in the military because they would let them do things differently as well...

I have a friend who drove an M1 in the army, but he still plays WWIII tank simulations... Why? Because he never got a chance to take on the Russkies. :-)

How about REAL life?

[theolein]

When I read batshit insanity like this, it reminds me of the Nazis during their final desperate years of power coming up with some extremely wierd so-called weapons to defeat their enemies, such as the wind cannon, or the assault rifle that could shoot around corners. It also reminds me of the CIA's experiments with LSD on American citizens in the 60's.

Trying to find patterns in terrorism in a game is so absolutely brainlessly stupid I can't believe that some moron came up with the idea. Real people are infinitely more complex than a game, and real life suffering, oppression and bloodshed can not be simulated in a game, or else people would not be playing UT or Quake.

Americans' Taxes

[truthsearch]

And to think my taxes are helping pay for this. Sure my money's being spent in far worse ways, but I can think of so many better places to put it. It still amazes me we pay people to do this stuff.

Hummers

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

I live less than 0.5 miles from the Hummer plant. They were never anything special to me growing up because of it, and it seems like everyone in this town has one. I'd like to have a decommissioned military model, though (sans guns).

Oh, and the H2 Hummer is the ugliest thing I've had the misfortune of laying eyes on. Thinking back on it makes me want to stab out my mind's eye.

Al Qaeda on Everquest

[Cruciform]

Hezbollah: Can ne1 spare some plat?

Osama: Yes my brother, Death to America! Do you have the box cutter of holy might? Then to Jihad!