December 02, 2006

Cyber Jihad: Giving Up Before We've Begun to Fight

Tom Allard has an extensive article about the rise of the cyber jihad and the internet as a tool for planning, recruiting, and disseminating terrorist propaganda. For those of us interested in winning this war, it's a must read.

The only problem? The experts who claim we cannot fight the cyber jihad have given up before we've even begun.

So there are 5,000 radical Islamist websites now. That's too many websites to shut down, say the experts. Wrong. Try killing upwards of 30,000 jihadis in Iraq at this very moment. Yet we are engaging the enemy wherever we can.

Hmmm, let me see.....which is tougher? Killing 30,000 jihadis or taking down 5,000 websites? And, yeah, for each one we take down another will pop up. But for every terrorist we kill, so does another. The fact that the fight will be tough does not mean it shouldn't be fought.

You do the math. Biggest problem? The compaints that it is difficult to find the cyberterrorists behind the internet jihad. Why is that a problem? Because it tells you we're still in law enforcement mode. We should be on a war footing. And that means treating the internet as both a tool of war (like a gun) and a space where that war is fought (a battlefield). First rule of combat: deny your enemy space to operate. Second rule: the fewer the weapons they have, the better.

Still, read it all. Here are some excerpts: MORE BELOW

Professor Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University academic and one of the world's foremost terrorism analysts, says the use of the internet by jihadists has fundamentally changed the ground rules of terrorism. For the first time, the monopoly of commercial and state-owned media over the mass communication of a terrorist group's message has been usurped.

The implications, Hoffman says, are "enormous", not least because terrorism, at its core, has ultimately been about generating publicity, communicating a message through a violent - and preferably spectacular - act to achieve a political outcome.

"The art of terrorist communication has evolved to a point where the terrorists themselves can now control the entire production process," he says.

The target audience ranges from potential recruits, financial contributors and passive supporters to Western governments and their voting public. Young or old, male or female - Islamic extremists will have a tailored message only a mouse click away.

Blogs, chat rooms, and video and audio files - there is little from the online world that jihadists have not employed to spread their message....

In September the Global Islamic Media Front released a video game, The Night of Bush Capturing, which can be downloaded off the web. As songs of praise to jihad play in the background, players work their way through six stages, including "Americans' Hell" and "Bush Hunted Like a Rat". The final mission is to slay George Bush, in one-on-one combat.

Adam Raisman, an analyst who monitors extremist Islamic websites for the SITE Institute in Washington, says the internet is the most potent tool terrorists have....

Raisman points to a recent publication by the al-Fajr group, another communications arm of al-Qaeda and its fellow travellers. He said it contained a very sophisticated manual on internet security, how to avoid hackers, secure personal files and ensure any computer that is captured is of little value to Western authorities.

Then there are offensive cyber operations, the possibility of terrorists bringing down critical electronic systems that underpin key sectors such as energy and banking....

Jihadist claims that they are winning the war are often accompanied by graphic images of terrorist blasts and the agonising deaths of hostages and soldiers.

In testimony to the US Congress earlier this year, Hoffman warned the US was "dangerously behind the curve" in dealing with the terrorist presence on the web.

Indeed, when police and ASIO agents swooped on the homes of 19 alleged terrorists in Sydney and Melbourne last year, they found an astounding array of violent material on their computers. Their electronic library was as voluminous as it was disturbing, including recipes for homemade explosives, poems in praise of jihad and grisly video and audio files of beheadings and terrorist attacks.

If shutting down the jihadists on the internet is impossible, Ramakrishna says, the West needs a multifaceted and integrated approach to sell its "counter-story".

"To discredit the story, you need to undercut it by showing their mistakes … and a positive message about the West."

The internet is our space. The internet is our tool. Let's take it back and win this fight.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:47 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 767 words, total size 5 kb.

1 So if we treat the internet as part of the battle space in our war against islamic extremists, then taking out 5,000 websites is not a real big issue.

All you need to do is identify the site, scavenge it for intelligence material and propaganda, and then perform the tried and true method to take down a site...

DDOS

I think I may have said this in some of the other comments threads here. But why don't one of you guys organize a group of us who could pull this off?

Posted by: newyank at December 02, 2006 09:12 PM (l1tqC)

2 I seriously doubt that anyone is going to come out in the open to organize a group that engages in DDOS since it violates a number of laws and cyber jihad, in and of itself, is not acknowledged as part of the battlespace yet.  It certainly needs to be though.
 
Citizens can however use hosters own TOS rules to force them to take down websites and there are other means not normally considered illegal as of yet that waste a good deal of their bandwidth.

Posted by: Buzzy at December 02, 2006 11:42 PM (CXz7T)

3 I'm sure our FBI would spend more time trying to get our guys than theirs.

Posted by: Randman at December 03, 2006 12:23 AM (Sal3J)

4 I'm all for doing something, but I'm not a computer whiz. I'm OK with a can of paint. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Anyway, I think it's OK to entertain the idea that something seemingly innocent, like a can of paint, could somehow become dangerous in the right hands.

Or put another way, how do we control the flow of information? What if what they do leaves bright yellow foot prints? What if the signs they use to navigate are wrong? What if their windows are painted over?

I'm being vague for a reason, but I hope not to vague. Nor do I really know what can be done with computers.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the obvious 'come up with something new'

During the Spanish civil war, tank advances were stopped with pie plates and bedsheets. What are our equivalents? How can we be surprising and effective.

Ethiopeans turned a tankette over with their hands, and killed another tankette crew with a sword. Computers are machines, but we are fighting the men behind them. They are vulnerable, if we just figure out how.

I know what my can of paint is for, but do you?

I you can think of a way for a Montana guy to help, let me know. Waiting to lose is stupid.

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 03, 2006 03:22 AM (2OHpj)

5 Start putting them in Guantanamo and let the cyber jihadi think twice if a website's worth it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 03, 2006 08:44 AM (8e/V4)

6 I have never stood behind the idea of using 'privateers' to attack Jihadi's online and I believe blackflag will back me up on this -- I will go to jail before any jihadi will.
Computer security professionals have gone to jail for good intentions, for example 'Max Vision' who created a worm that would patch an exploitable condition [e.g would deny script kids the ability to break into computers] was indicted and served jail time because they said his code would have allowed him access into the same machines he had protected -- even though there was not a single piece of evidence that he ever did access any machine his worm patched.
He didn't receive his Jail time immediately however, it only came when he told the F.B.I he would not wear a wire to talk to a friend, then once he could no longer be used to entrap and gather information on other hackers he went to Jail, that is why none of the professional computer analysts, and programmers are doing a damn thing about the cyber jihad, because as the old saying goes 'The road to hell is pathed with good intentions.





Posted by: davec at December 03, 2006 09:42 AM (yaQM4)

7 A lot of what CIA field ops do would also get them into hot water if it weren't for their projects being classified by the government.

Another thing to consider is these websites could be used a good sources of intelligence by the people trying to protect us from the islamic extremists.

Perhaps the best we as average citizens can do it simply report offensive websites to the companies that host them.

Maybe these guys could use some more help:
http://haganah.org.il/haganah/

Posted by: newyank at December 03, 2006 10:20 AM (l1tqC)

8 OK.

Well I do feel kind of useless about the cyberjihad. When I was a kid we used to think it was going to be a nuclear war, and we would have Chinese and Russian communist invading through the ashes.

My childhood friends and I thought of ways to fight back if they ever came this far. Being young, we had all sorts of imaginative ideas.

Later, when I was hanging around waiting for the police state to become a reality, I built upon the more practical tricks with older 'kids'. Not everything will work in every situation, but the variety of ideas was cool. We weren't any of us Mcgiver, or anything, but that wasn't the point.

We kept thinking of ways to win.

Against whoever. Using useless junk, that the ATF couldn't regulate. Computers are way past where I ever thought I would be going.

Now the enemy isn't the foriegn commies, or even the ATF (they still stink as an agency) We have the Islmaofascists, and 'Marxists Without Borders'.

I don't know how to fight them directly.

But I've been compiling information anyway. I don't spell as well as I used to, but I think I can write OK, but would anything I write make a difference?

I really want to be involved in a positive way.

I'm tired of waiting to lose.

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 03, 2006 08:04 PM (2OHpj)

9 #6 Davec: Isn't Congress permitted to grant "Letters of Marque"? Perhaps this is a power that needs to be resurrected for use in fighting the battle in cyberspace (not that I'd expect the Dems to do so)?

Posted by: irish19 at December 04, 2006 12:37 AM (BVgVr)

10 Rusty, you keep calling for cyber warfare. But oddly, you always neglect to specify exactly how you would carry out this type of operation. You admonish those that cry "Nuke Mecca" as not having a plan for afterwards. The same could be said about your counter-cyber-jihad.

You say "take the sites out" but dont say how or what we will do afterwards. What about people who criticize mypetjawa? Would they be next targets?

Cyber warfare is no substitute for a real bomb. The US is under constant cyber attack from abroad by people who dont like our ideas too. So what? You wanna really mess with us? Fly a plane into our financial center.

Jihadis ideas are wrong. It is the idea of jihad that needs to be defeated, not necessarily web servers that host writings about those ideas.

Posted by: BelchSpeak at December 04, 2006 10:42 AM (RnY/N)

11 All talk of cyber-war is useless, because the only thing muslims understand, what with their little, unevolved proto-brains, is blood and gore. We should burn them out of their homes and businesses, and slaughter them like rats when they run out with their asses on fire, and then they might understand.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 04, 2006 01:25 PM (Oew5j)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
41kb generated in CPU 0.0111, elapsed 0.0387 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0311 seconds, 166 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.