`Anonymous kicks off cyberwar against ISIS, gets 900 Twitter accounts banned`

[LongTermGuy]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-35SOwJjrWCU/Ue71RpqXeaI/AAAAAAAAAl8/c2ciaZoMpeE/s1600/pirate+hacking.jpg
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/oZj8pP3s.Op9KT2J.0cM3w--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NjIwO2g9MzUw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/BGR_News/anonymous-hacking.jpeg
http://weprideny.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/obama-scratches-chin-450x337.jpg

"Even people who aren’t normally fans of Anonymous probably won’t object to the hacker collective using its powers to take on Islamic State (https://bgr.com/2015/11/17/anonymous-hackers-isis-terrorist/), the hated group of Islamic fundamentalists that has carried out deadly terror attacks in Paris and Beirut over the past week. This is why we’re pleased to see that Anonymous has declared cyberwar on ISIS and has already gotten hundreds of its purported Twitter accounts banned from the service."

`Metro.co.uk reports that Anonymous this week published a list of 900 ISIS-related Twitter accounts that have subsequently been suspended by Twitter. This first strike is important because ISIS has shown itself adept at using social media as a recruitment and propaganda tool. Even though it’s easy for ISIS to create new Twitter accounts, it takes time to build up a following on new accounts and amplify messages. So while banning Twitter accounts might be a cat-and-mouse game, it can still be very disruptive to the organization’s recruiting methods.`

​https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/anonymous-kicks-off-cyberwar-against-isis-gets-900-161435168.html


**********************************
`The bigger question is why wasn't this already the case....why did it take "Anonymous" to ban ISIS from Twitter?`

`Many...are more confident in Anon than they are in the US government......The funny thing is that Anon is literally random people all devoted to a cause...it's not even a specified group of people.`*They are legion......and greater and more anonymous than you will ever know`

[revelarts]

Another place where you don't need bombs or planes to attack Terrorist.
the NSA can track ANY web activity and phone traffic but some how can't find ISIS online to pinpoint and dismantle there online or phone activity.
If they wanted to stop you or me they'd be at our homes confiscating our electronics as step one.
they can't block bank accounts, stop payments, interact and and block messages online, contact members to spy for us, or to run a sting on?

What are the billions in Homeland security doing?

[DragonStryk72]

Another place where you don't need bombs or planes to attack Terrorist.
the NSA can track ANY web activity and phone traffic but some how can't find ISIS online to pinpoint and dismantle there online or phone activity.
If they wanted to stop you or me they'd be at our homes confiscating our electronics as step one.
they can't block bank accounts, stop payments, interact and and block messages online, contact members to spy for us, or to run a sting on?

What are the billions in Homeland security doing?

Well, there are several technological points hampering finding the terrorist accounts.

1. Anonymous isn't trying to locate the terrorists, just wreck their day electronically, and this dramatically lowers the degree of difficulty.

2. Anonymous doesn't have to worry about things like evidentiary support, or exposing themselves to scrutiny. One of the upswings of what they do is their anonymity, because it allows them to act as they wish, without having to worry after their private lives.

3. Many of these accounts use false information in order to make sure that tracking them is nearly impossible. A Hotmail account, a made up name and location, and boom, you are the Lord of Twitter.

4. There are only too many ways to access the net. This makes things drastically harder especially overseas, where the US government doesn't have the authority to move, or a deep knowledge of the local tech culture.

[LongTermGuy]

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/kZ6ch9OGcGoMkOoBRvoCnQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/BGR_News/anonymous-hackers-vs-isis-terrorists.jpg
"Hackers vs. terrorists: ISIS says Anonymous are ‘idiots’ for declaring war"

`While it sounds like a mobile game you’d play to kill time, hackers (https://bgr.com/tag/hackers/) vs. terrorists is sadly a real war. The hacker collective that goes by the name “Anonymous” recently posted a video on YouTube declaring war on ISIS in response to the attacks on Paris that left 129 dead and hundreds injured on Friday night. Anonymous wants to “launch the biggest operation ever” against the terrorist group, and ISIS is apparently taking notice – though the organization apparently believes Anonymous are “idiots” for even considering digital warfare.`

“Anonymous from all over the world will hunt you down. We will launch the biggest operation ever against you,” a masked person said in the hackers’ video. “Expect massive cyberattacks. War is declared. Get prepared.” In response, a Telegram channel that is believed to be affiliated with ISIS hackers sent out a warning message in Arabic and English, telling others how to thwart Anonymous hacks."

“The #Anonymous hackers threatened in new video release that they will carry out a major hack operation on the Islamic state (idiots),” the statement said, according to Business Insider."

`
In a newly released video on the group's French YouTube page, the anonymous hackers (pictured) warn the terror group to 'expect us' because its members from all over the world are going to 'hunt you down'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320055/Hacking-group-Anonymous-declares-war-Isis-YouTube-video.html



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybz59LbbACQ&feature=youtu.be

[PixieStix]

Good for them, and good for us.

It is frustrating when you feel helpless to make a difference.

Thanks for posting this LTG. :salute: It is a reminder that we can do something

[revelarts]

Well, there are several technological points hampering finding the terrorist accounts.
I get your point in general, I'm not saying it's all easy but I still think FAR more could have been done and should be done by our own gov't.



1. Anonymous isn't trying to locate the terrorists, just wreck their day electronically, and this dramatically lowers the degree of difficulty.Yes I'm not saying Annon or the U.S. is just trying to do ONE thing. Part of my point is there are multiple ways to cyber attack an enemy. locating is 1, disrupt is another, attack/hack messages banks biz accounts, recruit, dilute, and sabotage messages, track followers, etc etc.




2. Anonymous doesn't have to worry about things like evidentiary support, or exposing themselves to scrutiny. One of the upswings of what they do is their anonymity, because it allows them to act as they wish, without having to worry after their private lives.
"evidentiary support"? since when in the war on terror has the U.S. been consistent on that front? the KILL list is secret and made up of completely UNKNOWN public evidence and no scrutiny or oversight. Hacking accounts with similar or less evidence is a FAR less destructive method. And if there's a question that a person is not a terrorist supporter. well at least he's still alive. And can possibly even recoup damages from a false charge/attack.

Concerning privacy, Most if not all of the NSA CIA and U.S. gov't contractors would be nearly as anonymous -as Anonymous- as well. plus they've signed up to fight "war" just as much as soldiers or police. That risk is part of the job. Also as a matter of tactics they should probably run most Cyber attacks AS "unknowns" anyway from remote locals and servers, not from D.C. or Langley.




3. Many of these accounts use false information in order to make sure that tracking them is nearly impossible. A Hotmail account, a made up name and location, and boom, you are the Lord of Twitter.
DS I find it hard to believe that if someones using a hotmail account regularly that the gov't is completely clueless on how to find the location and then ID of the user. If that's all it took to hide from the gov't then we all need to get a hotmail accounts right away.




4. There are only too many ways to access the net. This makes things drastically harder especially overseas, where the US government doesn't have the authority to move, or a deep knowledge of the local tech culture.
Again I find it hard to believe that the US gov't can't make a LOT more progress on that front than they apparently have. I suspect that the tech guys on this board could --with access to just the major US internet traffic hubs and 1 million dollars-- strategize on highly effective plans to disrupt ISIS and especially their enablers online activities.

I'm not saying it'd be "easy" but that it'd cause ISIS real and likely crippling damage.
All without ONE Solider Plane or boat every in harms way. and billions in logistical cost saved

[DragonStryk72]

I get your point in general, I'm not saying it's all easy but I still think FAR more could have been done and should be done by our own gov't.

Yes I'm not saying Annon or the U.S. is just trying to do ONE thing. Part of my point is there are multiple ways to cyber attack an enemy. locating is 1, disrupt is another, attack/hack messages banks biz accounts, recruit, dilute, and sabotage messages, track followers, etc etc.



"evidentiary support"? since when in the war on terror has the U.S. been consistent on that front? the KILL list is secret and made up of completely UNKNOWN public evidence and no scrutiny or oversight. Hacking accounts with similar or less evidence is a FAR less destructive method. And if there's a question that a person is not a terrorist supporter. well at least he's still alive. And can possibly even recoup damages from a false charge/attack.

Concerning privacy, Most if not all of the NSA CIA and U.S. gov't contractors would be nearly as anonymous -as Anonymous- as well. plus they've signed up to fight "war" just as much as soldiers or police. That risk is part of the job. Also as a matter of tactics they should probably run most Cyber attacks AS "unknowns" anyway from remote locals and servers, not from D.C. or Langley.

Not really. Like you said, CONTRACTors. And with contracting, comes a papers and regs. Anonymous has no such weakpoint. They also, notably, don't have a group of politicians bitch in piss in and moaning at each other over what to do. They point at the target, and go, "sic em".


DS I find it hard to believe that if someones using a hotmail account regularly that the gov't is completely clueless on how to find the location and then ID of the user. If that's all it took to hide from the gov't then we all need to get a hotmail accounts right away.

Why, would they use the Hotmail account again? Not like they're emailing each other. It's just there so they can use social media sites. Use a burner phone, drop your message, and wreck the phone. Rinse and repeat.



Again I find it hard to believe that the US gov't can't make a LOT more progress on that front than they apparently have. I suspect that the tech guys on this board could --with access to just the major US internet traffic hubs and 1 million dollars-- strategize on highly effective plans to disrupt ISIS and especially their enablers online activities.

Yes and no. They can theorize, but you have to bear in mind, None of them would be operating in any sort of beuracracy. Bear in mind that the membership of Anonymous are "professional" hackers. They have learned their skills privately for the most part, and are skilled enough to evade the various world governments. The best rarely work for a government, being more free and able to make more working privately.



I'm not saying it'd be "easy" but that it'd cause ISIS real and likely crippling damage.
All without ONE Solider Plane or boat every in harms way. and billions in logistical cost saved

The thing is, however, that our government has not worked out the tactics of cyber warfare. Strange as it is to think of, most mainline military strategic thought hasn't moved much past Vietnam. Yeah, we have shinier toys, but that does nothing for us in a cyber fight. Even intel agencies suffer from this point, with change coming slowly in a war that evolves in fractions of seconds.

[revelarts]

...


The thing is, however, that our government has not worked out the tactics of cyber warfare. Strange as it is to think of, most mainline military strategic thought hasn't moved much past Vietnam. Yeah, we have shinier toys, but that does nothing for us in a cyber fight. Even intel agencies suffer from this point, with change coming slowly in a war that evolves in fractions of seconds.
We could back and forth on your other points but this last one I'd agree and disagree with.

the higher ups in various places in the Gov't, DOD and Intel agencies are as you say very slow to adapt.
however i've seen at least 2 former NSA higher up outline some cyber fighting tactics that were available but not USED because they didn't cost ENOUGH. One said that after he retired he was able to online and used just open source info to find several 9-11 connections.

The tech and knowledge is THERE. the will to use it is bottle necked via the bureaucracy and politicians trying to keep their juggernauts afloat rather than protect the country.

there are EXTREMELY smart people that have and are working for the gov't intel agencies.
EDWARD SNOWDEN was a gov't contractor with the skills your talking about. He had access to any accounts he wanted. And Skills to infiltrate various networks. He was ready to help fight terror but he saw that the gov't wasn't using it for that but using it to track and store grandma's email and listen to military guys phone sex.

We do have the cyber guns, skills and manpower but it seems our leadership --at the executive and bureaucratic-- levels don't have a real commitment to WIN.

and prefer to wrangle over sending in troops. It fires up more political votes and flag waving. "Boots on the Ground" is more emotional and visceral than "bots on the net" a cyber war is not sexy or as politically to financially profitable.

[fj1200]

The thing is, however, that our government has not worked out the tactics of cyber warfare.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Stuxnet disrupting uranium enrichment centrifuges in Iran says otherwise. They may be running burner phones and keeping otherwise anonymous but I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA has some good metrics to work off of.

[jimnyc]

We could back and forth on your other points but this last one I'd agree and disagree with.

the higher ups in various places in the Gov't, DOD and Intel agencies are as you say very slow to adapt.
however i've seen at least 2 former NSA higher up outline some cyber fighting tactics that were available but not USED because they didn't cost ENOUGH. One said that after he retired he was able to online and used just open source info to find several 9-11 connections.

The tech and knowledge is THERE. the will to use it is bottle necked via the bureaucracy and politicians trying to keep their juggernauts afloat rather than protect the country.

there are EXTREMELY smart people that have and are working for the gov't intel agencies.
EDWARD SNOWDEN was a gov't contractor with the skills your talking about. He had access to any accounts he wanted. And Skills to infiltrate various networks. He was ready to help fight terror but he saw that the gov't wasn't using it for that but using it to track and store grandma's email and listen to military guys phone sex.

We do have the cyber guns, skills and manpower but it seems our leadership --at the executive and bureaucratic-- levels don't have a real commitment to WIN.

and prefer to wrangle over sending in troops. It fires up more political votes and flag waving. "Boots on the Ground" is more emotional and visceral than "bots on the net" a cyber war is not sexy or as politically to financially profitable.

So you expect them to use cyberwarfare and bots and such. We don't even know for sure specifically who they may be. This obviously would require monitoring and hacking. How long before you state that all of these people have rights, and every suspect should have a warrant against them before any style of monitoring or breaches? Or do you expect this massive cyberwarfare game to happen one at a time, and continually going into courts for warrants for every other suspicion?

Or is it ok when some do it, or those you agree with, like Snowden who is a criminal and traitor?

[jimnyc]

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Stuxnet disrupting uranium enrichment centrifuges in Iran says otherwise. They may be running burner phones and keeping otherwise anonymous but I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA has some good metrics to work off of.

Do they have warrants for those they may go after?

[fj1200]

Do they have warrants for those they may go after?

They don't need warrants overseas IMO. It shouldn't be hard to get one domestically, hopefully, either.

[jimnyc]

They don't need warrants overseas IMO. It shouldn't be hard to get one domestically, hopefully, either.

So we can just milly willy start hitting massive amounts of computers and servers in several countries? Seems like you and Rev suddenly want to be aggressive and take approaches that are a bit overreaching, without authorization and such.

Sure hope there aren't any Americans helping with the technology, and they dont have enough proof to get that warrant, or that American can then run their operations and keep things protected. Can't just indiscriminately go after any intelligence such as that without a warrant, even if overseas.

[fj1200]

So we can just milly willy start hitting massive amounts of computers and servers in several countries? Seems like you and Rev suddenly want to be aggressive and take approaches that are a bit overreaching, without authorization and such.

Sure hope there aren't any Americans helping with the technology, and they dont have enough proof to get that warrant, or that American can then run their operations and keep things protected. Can't just indiscriminately go after any intelligence such as that without a warrant, even if overseas.

Who said anything about hitting computers and servers in several countries? We, assuming here, have reams of data already and means in place to collect more data. Guessing here, much of it publicly available and not subject to warrants. If I'm incorrect then we're not getting much out of our NSA dollars.

[revelarts]

So you expect them to use cyberwarfare and bots and such. We don't even know for sure specifically who they may be. This obviously would require monitoring and hacking. How long before you state that all of these people have rights, and every suspect should have a warrant against them before any style of monitoring or breaches? Or do you expect this massive cyberwarfare game to happen one at a time, and continually going into courts for warrants for every other suspicion?
warrant in the U.S. absolutely
All the NSA was supposed to be doing work OVERSEAS. they can look for any threats, pinpoint, disrupt and cyber attack any enemies they find.
by the nature of what they see they see evidence of terrorism, linked to various cyber-communications-tranactions.
they can disrupt and or if questionable then pass it on to other authorities for prosecution or more investigation.
spys and espionage are technically legal right?

better cyber attacks than spotty intel then drone strikes in neighborhoods that may or my not kill "suspect" terrorist but definitely kill innocent people. The same with "boots on the ground" since there are always more dead civilians than enemy fighters.


so yeah i'm fine with it.

do you have a problem with it?

[jimnyc]

Who said anything about hitting computers and servers in several countries? We, assuming here, have reams of data already and means in place to collect more data. Guessing here, much of it publicly available and not subject to warrants. If I'm incorrect then we're not getting much out of our NSA dollars.

I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of computer stuff being used by ISIS is NOT in our country.


warrant in the U.S. absolutely
All the NSA was supposed to be doing work OVERSEAS. they can look for any threats, pinpoint, disrupt and cyber attack any enemies they find.
by the nature of what they see they see evidence of terrorism, linked to various cyber-communications-tranactions.
they can disrupt and or if questionable then pass it on to other authorities for prosecution or more investigation.
spys and espionage are technically legal right?

better cyber attacks than spotty intel then drone strikes in neighborhoods that may or my not kill "suspect" terrorist but definitely kill innocent people. The same with "boots on the ground" since there are always more dead civilians than enemy fighters.


so yeah i'm fine with it.

do you have a problem with it?

Nope, just odd that folks who demand rights for American terrorists abroad, suddenly think it's ok to do as they please abroad. And if you think hunting down IP addresses and data over a long period of time will stop ISIS, you're dreaming. They already have $500 million minimum, and the majority of their money is cold hard cash that is not stored electronically.

Yes, I laugh at that garbage. Boots are now needed on the ground as are massive amounts of bombs. It's idiotic to think we will stop these guys via cyberwarfare. The only thing you may stop with that is their propaganda.

[jimnyc]

[QUOTE=revelarts;779530spys and espionage are technically legal right? [/QUOTE]

Same as I said to fj - sure hope they aren't Americans in anyway in charge - or you will want warrants before they go after them. :laugh:

[revelarts]

Same as I said to fj - sure hope they aren't Americans in anyway in charge - or you will want warrants before they go after them. :laugh:

If there's suspicion of american leadership then warrants can be made. so.. um why the laughter. the U.S system of warrant works.
that's the point.

[fj1200]

I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of computer stuff being used by ISIS is NOT in our country.

Since this thread is about Twitter:


Twitter continues to grow, and its infrastructure is growing along with it. The popular microblogging service recently surpassed 100 million active users, and is once again expanding its data center network to keep pace. This time, Twitter is looking East.
After an extensive search in which it considered multiple East Coast sites, Twitter has settled on Atlanta as the location for its next data center. The company will move servers into an enormous data center operated by QTS (Quality Technology Services) in downtown Atlanta, industry sources say. The 990,000 square foot Metro Technology Center (http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/special-report-the-worlds-largest-data-centers/largest-data-centers-ngd-terremark-qts/#qts), owned by QTS, in downtown Atlanta is one of theworld’s largest data centers (http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/special-report-the-worlds-largest-data-centers/).
Twitter Data Center Hubs on Both Coasts

In adding infrastructure in Atlanta, Twitter is pursuing an East-West strategy, with server hubs on both coasts. It’s an approach followed by Internet-scale companies likeFacebook and Apple, which have each supplemented their California server farms with huge data centers in North Carolina. This East-West approach places infrastructure closer to more users, which Twitter is hoping can improve delivery speed for the more than 230 million Tweets sent daily.
Up until 2010, Twitter used managed hosting services from NTT America, housing its servers in NTT data centers in Silicon Valley and Ashburn, Virginia. In 2010, Twitterannounced (http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/12/15/archives/2010/04/16/twiter-will-get-its-own-data-center/) that it would operate its own data centers, starting with a new facility in Salt Lake City (http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/07/22/twitters-new-data-center/). Earlier this year, the company leased data center space in Sacramento, Calif. (http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/12/15/twitter-scouting-sites-in-sacramento/)with RagingWire Enterprise Solutions. The company apparently continues to maintain colocation space in Salt Lake City, but there are conflicting reports (http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/04/07/twitters-expansion-brings-capacity-controversy/) about its usage of its space at C7 Data Centers.

...
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/09/19/twitter-adding-more-data-center-space-again/

And much of where ISIS goes in the cyber world is.


Nope, just odd that folks who demand rights for American terrorists abroad, suddenly think it's ok to do as they please abroad. And if you think hunting down IP addresses and data over a long period of time will stop ISIS, you're dreaming. They already have $500 million minimum, and the majority of their money is cold hard cash that is not stored electronically.

Yes, I laugh at that garbage. Boots are now needed on the ground as are massive amounts of bombs. It's idiotic to think we will stop these guys via cyberwarfare. The only thing you may stop with that is their propaganda.

Of course Americans have rights. The Constitution is a B* sometimes. Nevertheless I'm not sure if that was directed at me but cyber warfare is not the only way to stop them.

[jimnyc]

If there's suspicion of american leadership then warrants can be made. so.. um why the laughter. the U.S system of warrant works.
that's the point.

Sure, you keep telling yourself that, as ISIS continues it's carnage. Thinking we can fight them with warrants and our computers is hilarious, and yet sad at the same time.

[revelarts]

I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of computer stuff being used by ISIS is NOT in our country.

Nope, just odd that folks who demand rights for American terrorists abroad, suddenly think it's ok to do as they please abroad. And if you think hunting down IP addresses and data over a long period of time will stop ISIS, you're dreaming. They already have $500 million minimum, and the majority of their money is cold hard cash that is not stored electronically.

Yes, I laugh at that garbage. Boots are now needed on the ground as are massive amounts of bombs. It's idiotic to think we will stop these guys via cyberwarfare. The only thing you may stop with that is their propaganda.

see, why do you keep thinking "ONLY"?

As I mentioned there are thousands of ways to cripple ISIS without U.S. boots on the ground.
the various means of cyber attacks financial, communications and logistics wise are a few.
there are legal means to deal with outside enablers and supply lines that i mentioned as well.

aren't we on the same team here why do i feel like your just trying to beat ME.

Don't you want to use EVERY method available 1st to avoid our troops sent overseas?
Shouldn't we try EVERY option BEFORE we send our men and women to be killed?

War is the last resort in my mind, I believe the folks who've been there who tell us it's hellish $h1t work.
I have ZERO desire to send people to do it on our behalf if there are other ways available.

[jimnyc]

Since this thread is about Twitter:


http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/09/19/twitter-adding-more-data-center-space-again/

And much of where ISIS goes in the cyber world is.



Of course Americans have rights. The Constitution is a B* sometimes.

Yep, and I suppose you 2 idiots think it's a bitch when much smarter people do what it takes to protect our country, our men and women abroad, and about terrorism in general - hence Alwaki being dead. His rights are now deader than a doornail. The constitution was no bitch in that matter. Sorry!

The only thing we can do is shut down propaganda. That won't do jack shit to their collected fortune. They have enough money to go for a LONG time, and many ways to continue bringing it in, that have nothing at all to do with the internet.

[jimnyc]

see, why do you keep thinking "ONLY"?

As I mentioned there are thousands of ways to cripple ISIS without U.S. boots on the ground.
the various means of cyber attacks financial, communications and logistics wise are a few.
there are legal means to deal with outside enablers and supply lines that i mentioned as well.

aren't we on the same team here why do i feel like your just trying to beat ME.

Don't you want to use EVERY method available 1st to avoid our troops sent overseas?
Shouldn't we try EVERY option BEFORE we send our men and women to be killed?

War is the LAST resort in my mind, I believe the folks who've been there who tell us it's hellish $h1t work.
I have ZERO desire to send people to do it on our behalf if there are other way available.

They are growing. We don't have time to sit back and hope lesser methods someday work. They need to be eliminated. I'm sorry you anti-war types don't like it, but that's all they know, and all they will understand - death. Disagree? Don't care, but most other leaders are stating similarly, so I must be onto something. Hell, even Hillary (minus the boots), thinks we should ramp up our bombing of them and have more boots (intel) on the ground involved.

And there aren't thousands of other ways, so stop talking like a schmuck, seriously. If it were that easy, and so many ways - then the damn public would be taking care of it by now.

And NO, not everything should be sit back and tried before sending troops. Yeah, that would be great, instead of sending them after about 30,000 folks, we try everything, fail, and then send them after 100,000, in a place that they now control more, have increased their finances and increased their weaponry.

[fj1200]

Yep, and I suppose you 2 idiots think it's a bitch when much smarter people do what it takes to protect our country, our men and women abroad, and about terrorism in general - hence Alwaki being dead. His rights are now deader than a doornail. The constitution was no bitch in that matter. Sorry!

The only thing we can do is shut down propaganda. That won't do jack shit to their collected fortune. They have enough money to go for a LONG time, and many ways to continue bringing it in, that have nothing at all to do with the internet.

So it's smart people who get to crap on the Constitution? You must think BO is a genius then because it was his smart people that created an internal memo that made the Executive branch judge, jury, and executioner not to mention his countless other Constitution crappings.

Shut down propaganda and potentially track whereabouts. Why are you so hostile to using all tools?

[jimnyc]

So it's smart people who get to crap on the Constitution? You must think BO is a genius then because it was his smart people that created an internal memo that made the Executive branch judge, jury, and executioner not to mention his countless other Constitution crappings.

Shut down propaganda and potentially track whereabouts. Why are you so hostile to using all tools?

Protect our men and women at all costs.

Why are you so hostile about eliminating terrorists and protecting our men and women? What do you have against them? Were you tossed out of the military when younger?

[fj1200]

Protect our men and women at all costs.

Why are you so hostile about eliminating terrorists and protecting our men and women? What do you have against them? Were you tossed out of the military when younger?

I'm not.

[revelarts]

They are growing. We don't have time to sit back and hope lesser methods someday work. They need to be eliminated. I'm sorry you anti-war types don't like it, but that's all they know, and all they will understand - death. Disagree? Don't care, but most other leaders are stating similarly, so I must be onto something. Hell, even Hillary (minus the boots), thinks we should ramp up our bombing of them and have more boots (intel) on the ground involved.

And there aren't thousands of other ways, so stop talking like a schmuck, seriously. If it were that easy, and so many ways - then the damn public would be taking care of it by now.

And NO, not everything should be sit back and tried before sending troops. Yeah, that would be great, instead of sending them after about 30,000 folks, we try everything, fail, and then send them after 100,000, in a place that they now control more, have increased their finances and increased their weaponry.


Well we disagree.
we should try every other means.
Anyone with a real concern to fixing the problem would use every tool available that'd cause the least damage.
especially since we know Iraq was a military FAILURE in reducing terrorist. we know that there are now more AQ and ISIS now BECAUSE of military intervention. and thousands former secular IRAQI military have joined the radical terrorist AQ and ISIS.
Libya a Military FAILURE, AQ in the leadership there.
the ISIS in Syria are made up partly of former Syrian Military that we've supplied and trained against Assad.
the military option is mainly a failure Jim.

If ISIS and terrorism kept growing after all these military intervention, then is it the best idea to send MORE military... to fail and grow more terrorist?

Or would you just have U.S. troops just take over in the M.E for 100 years?
You act like the military option is working now or will work one day.
is this the defining of insanity here?

[jimnyc]

is this the defining of insanity here?

The definition of insanity is sitting here and doing little, hoping that an attack doesn't happen, and hoping we can detect anyone coming in. :rolleyes:

[DragonStryk72]

They are growing. We don't have time to sit back and hope lesser methods someday work. They need to be eliminated. I'm sorry you anti-war types don't like it, but that's all they know, and all they will understand - death. Disagree? Don't care, but most other leaders are stating similarly, so I must be onto something. Hell, even Hillary (minus the boots), thinks we should ramp up our bombing of them and have more boots (intel) on the ground involved.

And there aren't thousands of other ways, so stop talking like a schmuck, seriously. If it were that easy, and so many ways - then the damn public would be taking care of it by now.

And NO, not everything should be sit back and tried before sending troops. Yeah, that would be great, instead of sending them after about 30,000 folks, we try everything, fail, and then send them after 100,000, in a place that they now control more, have increased their finances and increased their weaponry.

Actually, we can destroy ISIS without sending troops. It's not even lesser. If we looked at the Saudis and went, "we understand we'll be paying more, but we're going with other countries for oil, to avoid funding ISIS "

Let's see, Billions of dollars a year in oil revenue from the US? Or a bunch of little pissants in pick up trucks? Which would I rather see dead? Hm, let me think. Think I'm gonna need to kill me some toyotas!

I love how your estimate assumes that not only will every single other thing done fail (and that their numbers went up from 25,000 due to the Russian bombing strikes), it will somehow magically triple their numbers. Do you know what it took for AQ to get so big? Owning a country. ISIS doesn't have that, and given their hard ore combat vehicle are still pick up trucks, against Syrian tanks, it's not looking good for them on that front. I mean, seriously, they got bounced by Iraq, how badass can they really be?

Actually, the only reason ISIS got so big was disbanding the Iraqi army after toppling Saddam. With so many unemployed soldiers, ISIS had a huge ability to recruit quickly. That state no longer exists, and now they've got not only Syria, but the US, Russia, and finally Europe starting to turn on them. I doubt they're long for this world.

New forces will be difficult to come by as we increase the number of allies against them. That's completely without putting boots on the ground. They're fighting a losing battle, and honestly, we can kill them with drones, and risk no one while we go get more people.

As well, with economic force, we can mobilize the ME against them as well. Much as they like to talk all religious, I'm pretty sure the guys making absurd amounts of money off us will find their ways clear to declare ISIS heretics if the money pipeline gets threatened.

We have the best military on Earth, don't get me wrong, but THEY are our least effective weapon in this fight.