Slashdot Mirror
Al-Qaeda's Growing Online Offensive
andy1307 brings us a story from the Washington Post about al-Qaeda's technological capabilities and the methods they use to protect themselves and their networks from opposing military forces. Quoting:
"US and European intelligence officials attribute the al-Qaeda propaganda boom in part to the network's ability to establish a secure base in the ungoverned tribal areas of western Pakistan. Analysts said that as-Sahab (AQ's propaganda network) is outfitted with some of the best technology available. Editors and producers use ultralight Sony Vaio laptops and top-end video cameras. Files are protected using PGP, or Pretty Good Privacy, a virtually unbreakable form of encryption software that is also used by intelligence agencies around the world. [Al-Fajr, a propaganda distribution network] is heavily decentralized, with its webmasters generally unaware of one another's true identities for security reasons, intelligence analysts said. It also has separate 'brigades' devoted to hacking, multimedia, cybersecurity and distribution."
Why *wouldn't* AQ have all this stuff? We pay $$$$$ to the house of sa'ud, some of that money makes it to Pakistan. We outsource and train people in that region of the world and expose them to the best tech we have here. Why wouldn't *some* of them have a hobby? The next thing the Washington Post fearmonkeys will tell us is they use PEX bittorrent, SSH, and twofish crypto. And they embed marching orders in Flash and Postscript files. [yawn] Next!!
--- See you at the Tannhäuser Gate.
I can't imagine that it's THAT hard to create a fairly distributed network of "propaganda" outlets with most of the key people using encryption, small laptops, mobile communications....you know, stuff that most folks on this site do every day. And most of us aren't internationally wanted fugitives.
This is just more made-up generalized bullshit to get the easily-influenced people to go with more government spending on counteracting the nonexistent problem of terrorism. When was the last time terrorism was in your back yard? When did it affect you personally? How often is it happening?
And.. if it did affect you, chances are that your back yard is in Iraq..
The government keeps pushing 'Our enemy is huge, organized, centralized, and powerful' but we are seeing more and more than 'Our enemy is a disorganized populace tired of what the US is doing.'
It's like we're building a tank to try to destroy a wasp.. while the wasp keeps stinging everyone because we're sitting by its nest.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
I agree, proof please. It seems they want to scare the sheeple...ZOMGZORGZ you might die ... soonish.
Again, what do you want proof for? That they would produce propaganda or that they're taking security measures? Or what? Of course, there will be people that will want to use this to create undue alarm, but I just can't figure out what you and the parent are skeptical of and need proof for.
Now I realise it's the government's role to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt in the population but, if that's all they've got then I reckon we're all pretty safe.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
The tech is interesting but besides the bigger point:
He's winning because censorship always backfires. The censored party, no matter how wrong, gains an air of truth. The technology used to carry the message does not matter. Attacks on Al-Jazeera and websites were a terrible mistakes almost as bad as invading Iraq, torturing captives and legal immunity for contractors. We have acted as badly as our supposed Islamo-Fascist enemy and our talk about democracy, freedom of press and human dignity rings hollow.
The more I see this stuff the more I remember a philosophical point my history teacher told me once. In the revolutionary period, the "news papers" were far more attacking and had far more offensive rumors and accusations.
Now we see freedom being abused to spread "their" propaganda better than "our" propaganda. Whether or not we have the monopoly of truth is debatable. However, we are in a fight here and the *only* way to win a war of ideas is the freedom of expression of these ideas and hope that your ideas win.
As an american, I'm not sure our ideals, as currently practiced, will win. We have to do a better job of things. Al Qaeda is only winning the war of ideals because we, the western world, have turned its back on democracy and society in favor of raw and savage unregulated capitalism which is destroying our economies and an aggressive preemptive war strategy designed to suppress any dissent in foreign nations which is emptying our treasury.
Suppressing information is not a way to win the hearts and minds of people, especially while we are doing such a bad job living up to our ideals.
Usama Bin Laden to the US is the same as Emmanuel Goldberg is to Orwell's 1984. 'Two Minutes Hate' anyone?
So asking for proof before buying into a scare campaign into which our tax dollars are being spent at an unprecedented rate is being dismissive? You, sir, represent the political apathy among the masses that allows government to get away with what it does.
I hate printers.
To quote XKCD, "Did that man just go crazy and jump out the window?"
Seriously, what are you talking about?
The Washington Post, I can expect, at least checked its facts. They also cited references. If you read through them, you'll see that Al-Qaeda does indeed have an Internet-based propaganda machine and that they were staging Q&A sessions.
In fact, the article sounds critical of the US, saying that we're getting our asses kicked because of incompetence. That ought to be pretty good Slashdot material.
Also, the article seems to suggest that the US is not trying anything heavy handed. In fact, it just seems like a piece on how they release their videos and what (little) the US is doing about it.
Perhaps if the government were proposing some infringement of my rights in this article, or if there were something that seems absurd, or even out of the ordinary, you might, maybe have a point. In this case, though, I have no reason to doubt its validity, and I certainly didn't come away from it thinking I should let the government curtail some of my rights.
You're right. I, too, have a propaganda machine, as well as encryption and other scary things. I.e., I have a blog up at www.mrnaz.com and I use SSH from time to time.
Scary.
The article is suggesting that the US is getting their asses kicked not because that's actually what's happening, but becuase telling US citizens that that is what is happening will cause them to clamor for more tax dollars to be spent making rich defense industry shareholders even richer.
Re: Not trying anything heavy handed? Are you freaking nuts? The most expensive military campaign in HISTORY is not heavy handed?
As for proposing rights infringement, are you really that naive that it has to happen *in the same article*? So If you see one article scaring you about "terrorists using encryption" and then another about how police need to have more and more power to probe your private life, you're unable to put 2 and 2 together?
I have no words.
I hate printers.
1980: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
2000: The enemy of my enemy of my enemy is... my enemy.
Politicians should take up, like, basically Boolean logic, y'know?
--- See you at the Tannhäuser Gate.
9/11 was 7 years, two clusterfuck wars, and $1trillion ago.. And it still was not in my back yard.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
No doubt they do have some IT and media-literate people, but so what? That's not an "online offensive" except in the metaphorical sense of "offensive" that Pepsi would use about their forthcoming marketing campaign. (campaign, another military word coopted by marketing types.)
Nothing to see here etc etc.
To fight the Qaeda we must suspend the Constitution, take off our shoes and surrender our toothpaste getting on airplanes, invade Iraq (but not Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, but maybe Iran), pay $5 a gallon for gas. Rich people must pay no taxes, but everyone else must maximize oilcorp, pharmaco, telco, and bank profits, and hand Social Security and Medicare over to Wall Street. Free 12MPG Hummers for everyone with a credit rating, and subprime mortgages for everyone without one! Because that's the American Way that the terrorists hate us for.
I feel safer already.
--
make install -not war
if I just wanted to be a skeptical little shit, I could always just quote the parent and reply, "Yawn. Proof please. Next."
Any time Al-Qaeda is mentioned, it is to sell copy or to push an agenda. Preferably both.
When rights and statutes are being trampled upon all over the world with no proof that what we are giving up is worth less of that which we sacrifice, it is the duty of the populace to question their governance and its mouth, the media, in all its forms.
If that makes me a skeptical little shit, then so be it.
Karem
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
it's faceless monster created to give us a common enemy.
it doesn't exist.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes.
I was against the Iraq War from day one because it was not a war where we could win AND be the good guys.
Here's the thing about war:
It's not like in the movies. It's not a heroic clash of noble men. It is crawling in the bloody filth and tearing each other's eyes out. That's war.
How do you win a war?
Kill. Kill and kill and kill and kill and kill. Kill until there is no more fight left in the enemy. Kill until their sense of community is destroyed. Kill until they have no reason to go on. Kill until they break.
How do you wage a war on a country, while trying to save the country? In order to win a war, you have to kill a lot of people. But what if those are the people you are (ostensibly) trying to save? Even if they want to be saved, they aren't going to take kindly to being killed, and the people you are trying to save will become the people you are fighting.
Since we weren't interested in a war with the Iraqi people, it was an impossible war. If we really had wanted to defeat Iraq, you're right, we had to be a lot more aggressive. We needed a lot more people. We needed to have 2 GIs on every street corner of every burg in the nation, just making sure nothing happens.
Japan (where I live) is better off now than it was living under the Emperor cult. Germany is better off now than it was under Hitler. But in both of these cases, we had to wage war on the people. No government can stand without the people. If you have a problem with a government, you have a problem with the people. And the way to solve people problems, when push comes to shove, is to get rid of the people (i.e. Stalin was right). If you can't or don't want to do that, you shouldn't go to war. You will never win.
This is what happened in Vietnam; this is what has happened in Iraq.
A lot of Japanese people were sick of the war. A lot of people knew the government was off its rocker. A lot of the people in the government tried to stop the military (and found themselves dead). But no one greeted the Yanks as liberators after they melted two cities of civilians. They just realized that it was surrender or lose their homeland forever.
There's another huge difference between Germany/Japan and Iraq, though: Germany and Japan were civilized countries with a sense of national identity. After the war, no one had to convince them that they were all Germans or all Japanese. Not true in Iraq. They have no national identity; they have religious identity. Sunni, Shi'ite, or Christian. That's their identity. And they don't like living together.
So when you take the psychotic tyrant out of the picture, you find that he was the only thing holding the country together. And pretty soon, you have to become the psychotic tyrant, or these people will kill each other and you. But to do so is to violate everything you stand for and does irreparable damage to your reputation and your soul. So what do you do? It's too late to go back.
I suggest you just let them kill each other. Let them kill and kill and kill. Kill each other until a "winner" emerges. Then maybe they can get along with each other.
Terrorism is the weapon of an enemy who can't kill and kill and kill, so they look for other ways of breaking the enemy. I submit to you that 9/11 broke us. 3000 people and the USA and Britain imploded. Confused as to whom to fight, they have decided to fight their own people. We lost.
The Israelis deal with terrorism properly: They go on with their lives. They rebuild; they go back to work. They don't torture. They don't let go of their ideals. As you say, the body count isn't what a terrorist goes for. It's the demoralization. But the weakness of that kind of attack is that you have the ability to control your own demoralization.
The correct response to 9/11 (after the utter destruction of the Bin Laden training camps no later than 9/12--why did we wait months?), I think, was voiced by Jer
You can only win a war on terrorism by disabling terrorist cells and changing the behavior and thinking patterns of the individuals in leadership positions.
I don't buy the idea that terrorists are the best hackers in the world.They probably do use PGP, they probably do know about computers, but chances are they run Windows, and run commercial closed source software with backdoors in it.
Even if they run Linux it doesn't mean their passwords can't be cracked to their webservers.
I hope when we have a new President that our foreign policy and the way we fight wars changes so that victory is the goal and not just killing as many of the enemy as possible.
How do you wage a war on a country, while trying to save the country?
That's the problem in Iraq (as with Vietnam). Using the Army as nation-builders is flawed. The Army exists to kill people and blow stuff up.