Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US State Department Hacks Al-Qaeda Websites In Yemen

Posted by samzenpus on from the hearts-and-minds dept.

shuttah writes "In the growing Al-Qaeda activity in Yemen, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed today that 'cyber experts' had recently hacked into web sites being used by an Al-Qaeda affiliate, substituting the group's anti-American rhetoric with information about civilians killed in terrorist strikes. Also this week, a statement from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs revealed the presence an Al-Qaeda video calling for 'Electronic Jihad.'"

32 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. They did it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    They did it for the lulz.

    1. Re:They did it... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is a matter of record and fact: The US kills more innocent civilians in Yemen - or anywhere else, for that matter - than do any alleged 'al-qaeda' affiliates.

      Jeremy Scahill, National Security reporter for The Nation:

      "Saleh essentially made an agreement with the Obama administration to get an increase in his counterterrorism funding in return for allowing the United States to conduct various operations of its own, unilaterally. And so, effectively, counterterrorism funding for his regime became like crack cocaine. Yemen is the poorest country in the Arab world. His government was extremely corrupt. This was their cash cow, claiming that they were fighting terrorism.

      And so what you've seen over the past 10, 12 years of history between the United States and Yemen is Ali Abdullah Saleh, when it was convenient for him, allowing the al-Qaida threat to flare up, looking the other way when 23 al-Qaida people broke out of the prison that they were supposed to be held in, actually allowing weapons to be smuggled into al-Qaida areas so that they would attack a police station, and then coming back to the United States and saying, oh, we really need more funding to go and fight these terrorists."

      " the United States has sort of outsourced its intelligence operations in Yemen to Saudi Arabia and Yemen's security forces. And we've seen repeatedly over the past 10 years the Saudis and the Yemenis manipulate events regarding al-Qaida within Yemen to try to curry favor with the United States or to get more funding.

      And so I just would sort of reserve commentary, as a reporter who's covered Yemen extensively and been there, on going too far down the line of guessing who this agent was, who he was working for, and what he actually did, because I've seen it too many times where someone's getting played, or someone's getting spun."

      "Colleagues of mine who are in the south of Yemen right now and are on really the front lines of this drone war, my friend Iona Craig, who's a great reporter for the Times of London, was just saying to me that she met civilians who were severely burned from the drone strikes and that one civilian that she talked to said there were 26 people killed in the strike that he survived and was severely burned in."

      "the U.S. bombed this village and killed 46 people, and we know the names of all of the people that were killed. I went there myself. I interviewed a woman who lost her entire family. An old man, 17 of those 46 people that were killed were members of his family. There were five pregnant women among the dead."

      http://www.npr.org/2012/05/17/152854335/why-the-u-s-is-aggressively-targeting-yemen

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:They did it... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      Citation, please.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:They did it... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Informative

      In Pakistan alone - a country with which we are supposedly not at war - the US toll on civilians is outstanding in its atrocity:

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan, citing the Bureau of Investigative Journalism:

      US Drone Strike statistic based on months of research by a team of journalists of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism:

              Total reported killed: 2,433 - 3,093
              Civilians reported killed: 467 - 815
              Children reported killed: 178
              Total reported injured: 1,163 -1,268
              Strikes under the Bush Administration: 52
              Strikes under the Obama Administration: 267
              Total strikes: 319

      On 14 July 2009, Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution stated that although accurate data on the results of drone strikes is difficult to obtain, it seemed that ten civilians had died in the drone attacks for every militant killed. He suggested that drone strikes may kill "10 or so civilians" for every militant killed, which would represent a civilian to combatant casualty ratio of 10:1. Byman argues that civilian killings constitute a humanitarian tragedy and create dangerous political problems, including damage to the legitimacy of the Pakistani government and alienation of the Pakistani populace from America. He suggested that the real answer to halting al-Qaeda's activity in Pakistan will be long-term support of Pakistan's counterinsurgency efforts.

      -- Or you can believe the CIA, who are PAID NOT TO LIE!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:They did it... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So.
      This comment you deride is "Flamebait" because it cites independent analysis by someone who has actually interviewed primary sources IN YEMEN.

      This is opposed to the "factual" position that you maintain is presented by the unvalidated, assertions presented unilaterally by state/administration sources.

      Why are you so pro big government?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    5. Re:They did it... by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 2

      If you think NPR is lying, then you should perhaps investigate it. You could make quite a name for yourself in doing so; NPR is a reputable news organization.

      For another great example, go talk to the Afghans who had bombs dropped on their weddings. Just google "us bomb afghanistan wedding". Take your pick of major news outlets, if you don't trust NPR then maybe you trust CNN? Or NYT? BBC? Guardian? Fox news? CBS? Financial Times? MSNBC? LA Times? I mean, sure, they're all on the Internet, but pretty much every single news organization on earth has covered this at one point in time or another.

      By the way, don't get confused by all the various dates; there have been multiple instances of the US bombing weddings in Afghanistan. I lost track, I think it happened six different times. ...Oh, wait, I get it...in your eyes, there is no such thing as an innocent Muslim, huh?

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    6. Re:They did it... by daveschroeder · · Score: 2

      AP IMPACT: New light on drone war's death toll

    7. Re:They did it... by 1s44c · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Looks like we gotta kill 2k more to get even. Its like we all forgot that 11 years ago they gave us the biggest fuck you ever. I say burn em all

      The people that flew the planes into the buildings are already dead. Before they attacked you they made the decision that they would be willing to die if it meant striking back at their perceived oppressor, the US.

      While the US is killing random targets they are creating more and more potential terrorists who will go to greater and greater extremes to get revenge.

      If the US stops killing people today it will have less terrorists to deal with in the next 30 or so years.

  2. Why? by catmistake · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not to sound unpatriotic, but h4x1ng their bank accounts and those of their supporters would impress me more. Go Joe!!

    --
    The Admin and the Engineer
    1. Re:Why? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      Psyops. It's all about using knowledge and bias as a weapon.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  3. ...Huh? by twotacocombo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The feds hack a website, and they issue a triumphant press release. Anonymous does it, and they release the hounds.

    1. Re:...Huh? by bhcompy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe they'd be okay with it if Anonymous hacked terrorist websites instead of the websites of Western governments and businesses?

    2. Re:...Huh? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As if this is news? For decades, the feds have been busting into innocent people's homes and killing them and their dogs, without being arrested or imprisoned for it. Now, if I were to throw a grenade into someone's house, rush in with an assault rifle and kill them, what do you suppose would happen to me?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:...Huh? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...terrorist websites instead of the websites of Western governments and businesses?

      You mean there's a difference?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:...Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe they'd be okay with it if Anonymous hacked terrorist websites instead of the websites of Western governments and businesses?

      Terrorists defined so by Western Governments makes everything alright, doesn't it? No. If you call hacking a crime, then it is a crime for the government too. It is stupid they made it public, because now they acting like terrorists themselves. This is why more terrorists exist.

    5. Re:...Huh? by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yup. Underscoring this.... I was listening to Hillary and Panetta yesterday talking about this Doctor in Pakistan. The guy has been arrested for "Working for a foriegn intelligence agency". A crime which could get you life in prison or even death if you were caught doing it here.

      They, of course, want their informant released. Never mind that he broke the trust of Doctor Patient priviledge for untold numbers of people by setting up fake vaccination clinics to sample DNA (which, if done here would have gotten his license taken away and gotten him slapped with serious violations of the law), never mind that he is a Pakistani national who essentially became a spie for a foeign government....

      nope...somehow they don't understand why this guy is in prison.... even though they would hang him if he was an American and did the same things here.

      I don't see whats so hard to understand. The law is great, as long as its convinent to the people in power. The rule of law apparently isn't supposed to apply to them or their sycophants.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    6. Re:...Huh? by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it is merely a fortunate side side effect.

    7. Re:...Huh? by MorePower · · Score: 2

      I can at least understand trying to kill terrorists. Civilians get killed because of our desperation to kill the terrorists. I mean, it's horrible and all, but at least there is an understandable goal there.

      This seems just flat out petty. If we hacked websites to locate terrorists, or anticipate attacks, or disrupt their finances, I could understand that. But to hack in and just insert our own video? And admit that we did it? It just makes us look like script kiddies putting "USA rulz!!! LOL OMG" on stuff.

      Crap like this makes our enemies hate us just a little bit more, and makes our allies just a little bit more reluctant to support us, and doesn't accomplish anything material.

    8. Re:...Huh? by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

      Yes our government wont bomb a flight that your family would be on. The Terrorist however would be happy to kill you and your family without blinking. I don't find terrorism funny at all. But they would party in the streets on hearing of your plane exploding at 33 thousand feet.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    9. Re:...Huh? by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

      If the civilian population without force aid the terrorist they themselves are also terrorist too don't ya think? During the WWars we bombed and killed hundreds and thousands of factory workers. Oh i forgot this isn't the GOOD war this is the dirty war.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    10. Re:...Huh? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Yes our government wont bomb a flight that your family would be on.

      Yeah, pull the other one.. Oh wait, you're right. They just shoot them down, and then lie about it

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  4. Why was this made public? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These folk are usually extremely careful about the comments they make, so I wonder what the angle is here?

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  5. Re:USA contradicts itself every step of the way... by m1ndcrash · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh yeah. The "electronic jihad" email will look somewhat like this: This is electronic jihad! Unfortunately we suck at it, so dear infidel delete all files on your computer yourself. Thanks, 4£-Q43Ð4.

  6. Electronic Jihad How-To by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Funny

    Also this week, a statement from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs revealed the presence an Al-Qaeda video calling for 'Electronic Jihad.'

    In the video, they recommend fighting this in a traditional manner like suicide bombing. First you tape up with explosives, then sit at a computer, then log into a US website visited by millions of users daily and detonate your vest -- thereby sending all of those heathenish packets of Western information to hell.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  7. They didn't 'hack' a website. by Brewster+Jennings · · Score: 4, Informative

    "State Department officials recently carried out a counter-propaganda campaign on Web sites being used by al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, challenging the group’s anti-American rhetoric with information about civilians killed in terrorist strikes, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday" They posted responses on website forums for Tribal sites in Afghanistan. So, unless you believe that countering nonsense is hacking, then no, they didn't hack anything. If you do, though, that means that *this* post is hacking, which I'm pretty sure creates a paradox that destroys the cosmos as we know it.

  8. Re:Think of the Civilians! by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems like a pretty hypocritical message, considering all the civilians we've killed over there. In a place where we shouldn't even have military.

    The difference is the target and the intent. When we kill civilians, it's truly by accident. They usually die because a weapon malfunctioned or they were too close to a government building. We also tend to apologize for it and in many cases, notify the civilian population before an attack occurs.. In Iraq, for example, the goal was to free the people there from a tyrant.

    Of course, you may disagree with this, but if an Iraqi were to disagree with his government in 2001, they would die. They are free to disagree today. What makes you so special that you deserve freedoms like this and others don't? I served, by the way, not to give you freedoms. You already have them. I served, knowing full well that when I signed, I would be giving those that have not rights the very freedoms that you and I have.

    When Al Qaeda kills civilians, the civilians are the target. There is no warning before hand and no apology afterwards. The goal of Al Qaeda is not to free the population, but to convert or enslave them. If you are a Christian, Al Qaeda wants to you convert or die. If you are an atheist, Al Qaeda wants you to convert or die. If you are a Jew, Al Qaeda wants you to die.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  9. Not quite true by antonymous · · Score: 3, Informative

    What actually happened was that the State Department purchased some anti-Al-Qaeda ads to run when certain key terms were also on the screen, similar to how AdWords works. It's a pretty interesting concept, really - the necessity of displaying advertising on a site can open the door for alternative messages/realities to reach the viewer.

    1. Re:Not quite true by selil · · Score: 2

      Exactly. Clinton never said they hacked anything. One news agency ran with the hacking story, and over 12 hours ago they already were reporting that it was "buying advertisements". Not that reality, facts, or truth should ever be used in these situations. Even the Washington Post has changed their story http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-hacks-web-sites-of-al-qaeda-affiliate-in-yemen/2012/05/23/gJQAGnOxlU_story.html but don't let that stop anybody.

      --
      --- Location Unknown
  10. Re:Think of the Civilians! by sribe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wait, can you provide citations for this stuff? I mean, the purpose of Al Quaeda actually is to free the population from the foreign opressors (which is the USA in fact, hence the whole attack against the symbol of power in the heart of their financial district)

    So then, what exactly is the goal of a suicide bomber in a crowded market full of civilians? Why, exactly, would one need a "citation" to establish that the intent was to kill those civilians?

    Of course, if you want citations, Osama Bin Laden himself provided plenty... There really is no shortage, from all sides of al Qaeda, but I'm pretty sure you weren't actually interested.

    In other words, go fuck yourself.

  11. Re:Think of the Civilians! by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When we kill civilians, it's truly by accident.

    Bullshit. We know there is going to be "collateral damage" going in, and we go ahead and do it anyway. That's not "truly by accident".

    No, when the US kills civilians it knows exactly what it is doing. The powers that be have made a calculation that the benefits outweigh the costs, that's all. The only real question is who actually benefits and who pays the costs.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  12. It’s still an ACT OF WAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, the Al-Qaeda is evil. But from most of the world's standpoint, the US is even worse. (They killed hundrets of times as many people. Let alone all the meddling with foreign governments and secret prisons.)

    So just as much as Al-Qaeda, backed by Pakistan's government, hacking US government websites, would be considered an act of war... ...this is also an act of war.

    It's just that apparently, the ultra bully gets away with it...

  13. Re:Think of the Civilians! by gaspar+ilom · · Score: 2
    Oh, please. If the U.S. really cared about tyrants, we stop propping-up the brutal & corrupt Al Saud "royal" family dictatorship, in "Saudi" Arabia?

    >In Iraq, for example, the goal was to free the people there from a tyrant.

    Wasn't it supposed to be about WMDs?