Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Islamic State Documents Identify Thousands of Jihadis (sky.com)
itwbennett writes: Sky News reports that it was handed a USB stick with 'tens of thousands of documents' detailing phone numbers and family contacts of Islamic State members by 'a disillusioned convert' to Islamic State. 'One of the files marked 'Martyrs' detailed a brigade manned entirely by fighters who wanted to carry out suicide attacks and were trained to do so,' according to Sky News. CSO Online's Steve Ragan had a little fun at ISIS' expense and worked up a data breach notification that ISIS HR is free to use should they so choose.
The link I found about this claims the information is years out of date.
As I understand it ISIS is basically a different system now than it was in 2013. Still it should provide a huge number of places to investigate. Godspeed, FBI.
And Rupert Murdoch set about telling the world before letting anyone investigate in private before the hypothetical bad guys all run and hide.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
just wanted to point out that when wikileaks and other documents about western government activities were leaked, western media organizations given full access to them( like guardian etc) went through them blanking out names etc of people who may be endangered( like intelligence agents) by the leaks, before publishing them. wikileaks itself published them after such vetting by selected journalists. there was no doubt about the authenticity of those documents btw.
now not so authenticated lists of alleged isis members are published with "family contacts", but no such safeguards are taken.
as i said, i am just pointing out this is a double standard.
well as they say, all is fair in war huh? and western private media seem to be fighting the war on one side just as much as soldiers. question is are they then entitled to protection?
Can anyone explain to me why Islam is considered a religion of peace? Most of the terror in the world today is committed by Muslims. They control many totalitarian states that are particularly abysmal with respect to human rights. Why are there so many apologists for Islam? There's much outrage when a Christian-owned bakery refuses to cater for an LGBT wedding but there's silence when Muslims commit acts of violence against nonbelievers. Why is Islam given a free pass when they do far worse things? Islam is far more repressive than Christianity, but somehow this is tolerated. Why?
Because you haven't mentioned Christian or Buddhist terrorists who do the same thing. Islam's beliefs are old fashioned and in my opinion not very well adapted to the modern world, but there are many perfectly normal and sane muslims who don't support terrorists. Islam is not the cause of terrorism, or else all muslims would be violent and psychopathic individuals: the cause of terrorism is hundreds of years of violence and some very horrible leaders, where blowing yourself up is probably viewed as a pleasant escape by many of the people who do it.
When your baker turns away an LGBT couple, he's doing so soley because of his religious beliefs, and for no other reason; when a Jihadist blows himself up, thinking that Islam is the sole cause is extremely short sighted and a sign of someone who's research extends as far as what appears on Fox news.
Just to be clear, I do not support terrorism or the horrible acts being committed in the middle east; I have absolutely no sympathy for ISIS, and anyone who would blow themselves up or torture people who don't "follow the faith" deserve to burn in their version of hell. However, I will not fall victim to discriminating, as seems to be very popular in the United States these days, and you should be ashamed of yourself for sinking to that level.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Indeed http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
In Buddhism, there is no 'martyr', that is they don't encourage for 'be ready to die for your religion'.
Monk like the ones mentioned in the article will have karma 'Terrible' and his life will be buried in '-1: Redundant' mod.
However, I will not fall victim to discriminating, as seems to be very popular in the United States these days, and you should be ashamed of yourself for sinking to that level.
Disclaimer: I'm a Canuck.
You don't need to fall to discriminating. Non-western Muslims have done that all on their own, and in some cases western muslims especially those that are first or second generation. Fun reminder: It was CAIR who told muslims not cooperate with police, and it was also CAIR who were unindicted co-conspirators in funding terrorism. It was also various muslims(mainly fundamentalist) who attacked reformists who told police and security services that the police *should* be investigating mosques and in turn keeping a very watchful eye on muslims that go to mosques that are preaching fundamentalism. There's a schism without a doubt, and right now it's reformist vs fundamentalist. And many in the west would rather bury their head in the sand over it.
Om, nomnomnom...
Do we not even understand how a wedding cake and MASS MURDER are different? Really? Those are equivalent acts in your mind?
And I can't help but notice that, once again, a leftist is jumping up front and center to defend Islamist killers. Why does this keep on happening? It's like they're allied together in the service of destroying Western civilization.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
It is a religion of peace by subjugation of all others. It is nothing more than a cult that has grown large enough to takeover nations...
If you kill any opposing view it leaves behind it "peace".
Christians and others expanded similarly except with Islam it's quite a bit more pronounced handbook for take over and oppression.
Religion is a tool for the corrupt and a crutch for the weak of mind.
The problem with even the moderate muslims (or with their beliefs) is that they are muslims first, citizens second. You are right: even many moderate muslims who wouldn't dream of stooping to violence themselves would vote for sharia law if it was brought to a vote. They feel they are obliged to. And the actual content of their religion plays a big role here! Not all religions are create equal as we are led, cautioned and forced to believe; islam has some pretty hardcore stuff in there and precious little of the whoever-is-without-sin or turn-the-other-cheek stuff. In a race of "who is the better muslim?", things get dark quickly. Even if it all happens by wholly democratic means. Egypt's "spring" went south pretty fast.
Here in Europe we don't have a problem with terrorists or with muslims; of the former there are precious few, and the latter are pretty normal people, individually. But the beliefs of those normal people can still be dangerous if they gather (vote) in large numbers. We do have a problem with islam gaining in influence. And our democracy is poorly protected against such influence: a previous minister of justice stated that if enough people wanted sharia, it would become the law (and he stated it as a matter of fact, not as a warning).
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Um, he said:
Just to be clear, I do not support terrorism or the horrible acts being committed in the middle east; I have absolutely no sympathy for ISIS, and anyone who would blow themselves up or torture people who don't "follow the faith" deserve to burn in their version of hell.
That doesn't sound like a "leftist" defending Islamist killers.
Islamists are responsible for about 5% of terror attacks in the US and 2% in Europe. Of course, there are other issues in Europe right now to do with the migrant crisis, but we are talking about terrorism here. Globally Muslims are responsible for about 10% of terrorist acts. Most importantly, the chance of being affected by Islamic terrorism is vanishingly small, much less so than the chance of being affected by homophobia for example.
So don't try to compare to the two. They are very different and we can care about both. Putting effort into fixing one does not mean we don't care about the other, but undeniably working on LGBT rights is likely to have much more impact on many more people's lives than crapping our pants over Islamic terrorism is.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Christians and others expanded similarly except with Islam it's quite a bit more pronounced handbook for take over and oppression.
The specific parts about taking over and killing heathens is in the part that is common between the Abrahamic religions.
Everything that encourages violence in Islam is exactly the same in Christianity and Judaism.
I don't know exactly where it is in each book, but for Christianity you should check Deuteronomy, Exodus and Leviticus in the Bible.
It is repeated several times over to kill anyone of the wrong faith. It also explicitly tells believers to kill all gay men (Not lesbians for some reason.) and advocates murder of adulterers. The encouragement to kill sorceresses and fortune tellers shouldn't be much of a problem unless you believe in them too.
Isaiah 14:21 demands that sons are killed if the father commits such a crime to prevent criminality to spread through genetics.
Jeremiah 48:10 says that anyone who refrains form killing in the name of God should be cursed.
Granted, the Bible has some encouragement for violence even in the part that it doesn't share with the other two like Luke 19:27 and Matthew 10:34, but those are testaments rather than encouragement to others.
Anyway, whenever you see someone state things in the Quran to show that Islam encourages violence it is most likely in the part that is shared with the old testament and Christianity has the exact same phrase.
I do not know enough about the Quran to say if there are unique parts of it that encourages violence. Every time I've seen violent parts quoted it has always been thins I recognize from the Bible.
More likely because the Christians will yell and scream at you while the Islamist groups if given the opportunity will outright kill you when you make crap up and distort their religion, religious characters, or religious sources.
Probably the most perversely funny thing I've ever seen on television news was a decade or more ago when two sects of Buddhist monks were fighting over possession of a temple on a street corner. The streets were full of bald men in robes going at it with quarterstaffs.
(I half expected to see Jackie Chan come crawling out of the side of the crowd.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Really? Who's doing the other 98%?
I'm curious where he got those numbers, and of course there's always the fudge of who decides what qualifies as terror, but you merely have to turn on the evening news to see who's killing who in the USA.
Of course, if a genuine psycho or other non-Jihadist murderer goes on a rampage you might only hear it mentioned once (if at all), whereas they'll talk about Jihadist killings for months.
And that's from our "liberal" corporate media.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
So why doesn't Indonesia have Sharia law yet? The country is 80% Muslim yet the democratically elected party in power cracks down as hard as it can on Islamic terrorists. The party that lost the election also cracks down as hard as it can on Islamic terrorist (when they were in power). The 2 biggest parties seem to compete on who cracks down on Islamic terrorists the most.
The party that runs on a platform of Sharia law? They can't get enough votes to get a single representative in parliament. In an 80% Muslim country.
it seems to me that if you actually give Muslims a chance to vote, they don't seem to favor hard-line fundamentalism. It's only if you screw around with their voting (or have no voting at all) that Islamic fundamentalism takes hold. And even then, the hard-liners have to constantly, heavily enforce their rules and literally beat the populous into submission.
Islamists are responsible for about 5% of terror attacks in the US and 2% in Europe.
This page has some sources, but also states: In January 2015, The Economist compiled data regarding deaths due to political violence in western Europe since 2001. These data show that the death toll associated with Islamist terror is particularly high, especially when compared with the low overall proportion of religiously motivated attacks reported by Europol.
The list of incidents on that page seems to confirm this.
Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
Here in Europe we don't have a problem with terrorists or with muslims
The people that worked for Charlie Hebdo would disagree with you if they werent killed by fucking terrorists, and Muslims.
Europe has had a problem with specifically Muslim terrorists for literally hundreds of years you ignorant apologist twat. They also have a big problem with non-Muslim terrorists you ignorant apologist twat.
The only reason to open your mouth and be that ignorant is if you really dont give a fuck about actually saying things that arent demonstrably wrong.
"His name was James Damore."
It's not support for Islam, it's the ideology of multiculturalism that seeks to sweep under the rug the negative attributes of non-white and non-Western cultures. The blatant and disingenuous lack of acknowledgement of violence associated with Islam is no different than the willingness to ignore the rampant criminality among Blacks.
The false equivalence applied to Christians who discriminate according to their religious beliefs isn't much different, and is its own hypocritical moral relativism. Given the atrocious treatment of gays and women among Muslim populations, you would expect at least an equivalent criticism of Islam -- yet instead, we get apologists, and apologists who defend "voluntary" cultural practices like restrictive dress for women or support for Islamic workers who are fired because they can't walk away from their jobs to pray whenever they want. Can you imagine how little support they would provide if Christians demanded prayer time on their own terms from a liberal-owned business?
Are you seriously saying that because bad things happened in the past we should allow bad things in the present and future?
I'm kind of surprised people are not aware of Buddhist violence and terrorism, especially over the last decade. They even outright slaughtered some of your Jains a few years ago. You might want to do some Googling on this. Here is a link, don't let the domain fool you, the story is not embellished.
http://www.christianpost.com/n...
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
You're a cock.
Replace Muslim/Islam with Vegetarian/Vegetarianism to see why.
Some vegetarians gathered at the local supermarket and killed someone? Raped someone? Shit, all vegetarians need to be arrested / exterminated, no? Fucking idiot.
You have a correlation (the terrorists in this case are claiming to follow Islam), not a causation (Islam did not make them terrorists - there are MILLIONS of Islamic people who are not terrorist that you want to conveniently ignore, like there are millions of vegetarians who didn't shove cucumbers up people's arses in protest)..
Not even that, the correlation is tenuous. I'm British. We're far from new to terrorism, on either side of the coin. Fuck, we spent most of the 80's/90's being bombed to oblivion by the IRA.
The IRA? Formed, if you dig deep enough, because of two main groups in opposition to each other, colloquially assigned as "Catholics" and "Protestants". Are Catholics bombers? Are Protestants? Like with the vegetarians - some but not all, and they aren't bombers because they are protestant, they are bombers who happen to ALSO BE lumped into a religious group (somewhat unfairly, in fact, and Ireland was divided and referred to for many years by such religious groupings rather than, say, those who opposed British rule and those who didn't).
The last bomber I saw on the news was a car driver. Are car drivers all bombers? Or was this bomber just happening to be a car driver? Or... maybe.. if you want to discredit some group you become a bomber and SAY you part of their organisation. Is there an "Islamist Club" membership card or do we just have the words of some passer-by interviewed for the news story.
Take your fucking blinkered, DANGEROUS, racist, religionist and ignorant views, and the implications and accusations that you put with them and go sit with the fucking dunce in the corner.
What's dangerous is anyone's RELIGION being more important than how they deal with people. Christians - if you generalise over history - forcibly colonised most of the world to "convert" people. It's the conversion that's the problem, not the particular religion they choose to convert you to.
Stop being a cock.
Islamists are responsible for about 5% of terror attacks in the US and 2% in Europe.
The EuroStat statistics are horribly misleading. From the 2015 report (PDF).
On page 8 (emphasis mine):
Type of terrorism
As in previous years, separatist terrorism continued to be the dominant type of terrorism in court proceedings in 2014. The vast majority of separatist terrorism verdicts (92%) were pronounced in Spain. Courts in Denmark, France, Lithuania and Germany also issued verdicts in relation to separatist terrorism.
And on page 4 it says:
In Spain, reported terrorist attacks continued to decrease from 54 in 2012, to 33 in 2013, to 18 in 2014. In both countries, all attacks, except one that happened in Spain, were classified as separatist. The attacks in Spain did not cause casualties.
In fact, ETA hasn't killed anyone since their ceasefire in 2010, which they later amended to be permanent so that's over 100 terror "attacks" without loss of life as far as I can tell. Meanwhile a single islamist attack in Paris cost 130 lives with zero convictions because they're dead. No wonder they don't show up in arrest statistics.
The higher you set the threshold, the more obvious the relation gets. If you look at terrorist attacks that have killed more than 10 people in the EU since 2000 that list is presumably quite complete and it's as follows:
2004: Madrid train bombings, 191 dead - islamists
2005: London subway bombings, 52 dead - islamists
2015: Charlie Hebdo attack, 18 dead - islamists
2015: Paris attacks, 130 dead - islamists
Are you starting to see a pattern? Feel free to make the same list for the US.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Christians used to be just as oppressive, so the religion does have the capability if circumstances are suited.
Perhaps Islam is not a unified religion, and different regions may have very different forms of Islam even if they share the same holy text?
Christians flew planes into buildings killing thousands of innocents in a single attack? I must have missed a week of news.
Oh, you are saying they USED to be as bad. Well, the DNC is the party that fought tooth and nail to keep slavery, fought against the Civil Rights Act, and took back in 49 of the 53 Dixicrats that wanted to keep blacks suppressed. In fact they also had a former KKK leader as a top official. Oh, wait, that was only a couple decades ago and doesn't matter, what matters is what happened over 1000 years ago.
What makes you think the intel svcs didn't get these first,
The wording of the article implied they received them recently, but going back a re-reading more carefully it looks like they chose their words carefully to give that impression but not say it. So I don't know.
and what makes you say Murdoch published all the details?
Sky News told the world. I didn't say they had published all the details.
Wishful thinking so you could see if your name was spelled correctly?
Troll much A.C.?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
The lists of people who recommended the people to the terrorist network may still be immensely valuable and help to flush out the recruiters and financial supporters living amongst us in the safety of the societies they seek to destroy. Those people are far more dangerous than the fools that they manipulated into become cannon fodder.