Anonymous “Hacktivists” Strike a Blow Against ISIS

[wyldwolf]

If this has already made the rounds, I missed it. Sorry for the (maybe) dupe.

Anonymous has just struck a massive blow against ISIS recruiting efforts. Hacktivists recently took control of dozens of Twitter and Facebook accounts that had been openly used by ISIS to expand their influence and recruit new members.

The above video explains the attack was coordinated by “Muslims, Christians, Jews” alike. They are “hackers, crackers, Hacktivist, phishers, agents, spies, or just the guy next door… students, administrators, workers, clerks, unemployed, rich, poor.” They are also “young, or old, gay or straight… from all races, countries, religions, and ethnicity. United as one, divided by zero.”

An important point made by the video is that “the terrorists that are calling themselves [the] Islamic State (ISIS) are not Muslims.” Anonymous further directs a threat to ISIS itself:

We will hunt you, take down your sites, accounts, emails, and expose you…
From now on, no safe place for you online…
You will be treated like a virus, and we are the cure…
We own the internet…
We are Anonymous; we are Legion; we do not forgive, we do not forget, Expect us.

http://anonhq.com/anonymous-hacktivists-strike-blow-isis/

[Douglas Carpenter]

1. cool

[femmocrat]

2. Way cool!

The link provides the urls of the accounts that were taken down.

[yuiyoshida]

50. Totally cool!

Cool and a half!!!

[Warpy]

3. The trick is keeping them down

and they obviously will never get the kind of support to allow them to do that.

But for the moment, hooray for Anonymous!

I love them. I don't care if they start to inconvenience me.

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. "We are Anonymous; we are Legion; we do not forgive, we do not forget, Expect us." K&R n/t

[MADem]

22. I often wonder if "Anonymous" is the NSA....

I know that's not a popular POV, but I can't help but wonder...

One of the best ways of recruiting sharp "hacktivists" is to embroil them in illegal activity, then flip them to your side in exchange for reduced or probationary sentencing. Then, pay them well and they're owned...

Not like it has never happened, after all...

[Ghost in the Machine]

24. Could be possible, for anyone caught in this Country but they are a worldwide network...

I think it might be hard for them to extract them from other Countries though. It is food for thought.

Peace,

Ghost

[MADem]

27. NSA works closely with other countries--no need to extract them, just tell the crew

where they live....

UK is a prominent example where members of that group were rounded up in fairly short order, though the question posed in the headline here is probably answered with a big fat no: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-06/10/anonymous-sabu

...The problem lies in part to the fact that the qualities needed to lead Anonymous are antithetical to maintaining anonymity. The job requires someone who is charismatic to inspire people to support a cause, but who also has the skill and discipline to maintain anonymity. It is difficult to master both of these equally.

But Olson cautions against writing off Anonymous. The collective has ebbed and flowed over the years, taking long breaks between attacks.

"I wouldn't write off their existence completely just because they've gone quiet," she says. "You never know what's going to happen."

Don't be too quick to write off Monsegur, either, she says. He may well be back. Hacking, Olson says, is a game where people switch sides with some regularity. It's hard to see Anons welcoming Sabu back, but Olson isn't ruling out the possibility that he'll be back in the game in some way.

"The internet has a short memory," she says, "so a couple of years from now, he can reinvent himself. Who knows what he'll be doing?"

Of course, it absolutely could be coincidence, but I can't help but notice how often the interests of Anonymous intersect with the interests of the United States--at least in a "long term" kind of way. Not always, of course, but just enough to make me wonder!

[JustAnotherGen]

56. I've entertained the thought

Too.

[JDPriestly]

25. I've had the same thought.

Not in every case, but in some of the instances in which Anonymous has acted. After all, anyone can call themselves "Anonymous."

[Cha]

58. Interesting.. wouldn't that be Ironic!

[Midnight Writer]

61. The CIA has a long history of this

They recruited Mafia to act underground in Europe during WWII.

They recruited homosexuals as spies in the Cold War.

They recruited drug smugglers for their dirty work in Central America.

They recruited arms smugglers in the Middle East.

They recruited pedophiles to "get the goods" on Congressional staffers.

They recruited an entire cadre of criminals to work underground in Cuba.

They used underground religious cults throughout the world.

Any time there is an established underground network of folks, be it criminal, social, religious or sexual, it is a target for infiltration and control by spies, whether USA or other.

As CIA Director Richard Helms once said, "If you are smuggling arms into a hostile environment, you don't hire Boy Scouts".

[JonLP24]

78. That actually does happen (not sure of stings but the whole busting them & hiring aspect)

I know FBI did bust someone who was with Anonymous, I think he aids in their investigations but if they're Anonymous (law enforcement has had issues with hackers claiming their Anonymous but aren't really Anonymous) seems there goals appear to be "white hat" in nature. NSA performing hacks on civilian infrastructure but there are so many world class hackers around the globe.

[fbc]

5. "are not Muslims"

Well, actually they are.

I'm not sure if blatant falsehoods help get a message across.

[ananda]

7. Okay then, MINO.

Muslims In Name Only

[ck4829]

13. We may call it No True Scotsman, but Muslims call it Takfir

It's where a Muslim is accused of actually not being a believer.

Muslims do it to each other when another Muslim sees them as straying too far away from the belief system that they think is Islam, problem is that this is used a lot by Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other groups against moderate, progressive, and other Muslims who aren't allied with them.

Maybe it's time for modern Muslims to take Takfir back and point it back at groups like ISIS.

[MADem]

23. Bingo--this is one of those situations where a Western paradigm does not apply.

Modern (and not-so-modern) Muslims ARE doing just that, and leading the charge is the Very Pissed Off King of Jordan.

[Cha]

59. "...and leading the charge is the Very Pissed Off King of Jordan."! The ISIS BACKFIRE!

[Act_of_Reparation]

71. Yes, logic is a "western paradigm"

And denying the problem has anything to do with the religion, making no effort whatsoever to address the religious factors that drive some believers to acts of intolerable cruelty seems like a very effective means of rectifying the problem. I mean, it has worked really well for Christianity, hasn't it?

[MADem]

72. This isn't about western attitudes re: logic--it's about takfir, which is an element of faith.

When discussing takfir, one is discussing a religious factor--a rather key one in the context of this conversation.

Takfir is entirely "logical" within the context of Islam. It is not dissimilar to Roman Catholic excommunication in its end result, but it is applied in a very different fashion. It's a real thing, too, and is regarded as a serious punishment, sufficient to be very concerning to the individual to whom it is applied.

Not sure who is "denying the problem has anything to do with religion." Takfir doesn't happen absent a religious context.

[Act_of_Reparation]

73. So it's the usual acrobatics, I see.

You can call it takfir or banana cream pie for all I care; it doesn't make the Scotsman any less true.

The problem, as I've already stated is thus:

If Sub-Group A behaves badly, Sub-Group B declares they aren't really a part of Group X. This necessarily implies that Sub-Group A behaves in a manner contrary to the established tenets of Group X; that the problem is with the individuals, not the group. Consequently, no effort is made to address the systemic causes of Sub-Group A's behavior. Ten years after Sub-Group A disappears, Sub-Group C shows up, and they're ten times worse.

Never mind that Group X lacks a central authority, and that Sub-Group A could just as easily disavow Sub-Group B.

And before you use excommunication as a representative example, you might want to take a look back at how it has been used, historically.

[MADem]

74. Ok, so only your culture/your approach matters, then.

There's only one side to your story.

Nothing more to say, here. You've got your mind made up!

Have a good day....

[Act_of_Reparation]

75. The solution to 2+2 doesn't change depending upon where you are born.

Logical syllogisms are not culturally dependent. No True Scotsman doesn't stop being a fallacy once you cross the Bosporus.

[MADem]

76. I think if you'd been raised in an Islamic culture you wouldn't be so confident of your

Scotsman approach. It does make a difference not so much where you were born (Islam isn't hemmed in by the Bosporos, you surely must know), but in which culture you were raised. And, to put it plainly, sharia doesn't give a flying fig about Scotsmen or your 'fallacy' argument. If you don't believe me, go try it out--you won't get far, I promise you.

[Act_of_Reparation]

77. You're still digging that hole. Must be tiring.

I think if you'd been raised in an Islamic culture you wouldn't be so confident of your Scotsman approach.

I think if you waddled down to your local library and picked up a book on Islamic history, you wouldn't be so confident of your takfir approach.

(Islam isn't hemmed in by the Bosporos, you surely must know)

No shit. Your hyperbole detector must be out of commission, or perhaps you are compelled by an intolerable desire to pontificate. I'm guessing it is a little of column A, and a little of column B.

And, to put it plainly, sharia doesn't give a flying fig about Scotsmen or your 'fallacy' argument.

That may or may not play a part in why I think sharia is very much a part of the problem.

If you don't believe me, go try it out--you won't get far, I promise you.

Like I said: Muslims have been playing the takfir game for the past thirteen hundred years. Claiming ownership of the "true" religion doesn't rid the world of extremists. It breeds sectarianism.

Or do you think Christendom was better served by the concept of "heresy"?

[MADem]

80. No, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that you are biased against a cultural mindset not your own.

You don't have to "like" the mindset, but you can't wish it away with snark or insults directed at me. You won't--as I said--get very far.

Have a nice day, now.

[MynameisBlarney]

6. Awwwww YISSSS!!!

I was wondering if Anonymous was going to get involved.

Go get 'em, Anonymous!

[Fred Sanders]

8. Fox next for embedding ISIL propaganda and recruitment snuff videos that ISIL then linked to. Please.

[cui bono]

29. Wow. I had not heard that. n/t

[Fred Sanders]

30. They have another ISIL recruitment video up as their top web site story...NOW. All true.

Fox is actively assisting ISIL with recruitment, without recruits ISIL dies.

Free speech?

[cui bono]

38. Ugh. Irresponsible free speech. n/t

[tiredtoo]

9. More good stuff

From this bunch of hacktivists. Carry on my friends, carry on!

[riversedge]

10. I had not heard so Thank you.....photo form link....

[riversedge]

12. Interesting--says it now targets ISIS members--not just website...

Hope they are able to do that.

[riderinthestorm]

11. Cut off their propaganda AND their funds

If Anonymous can get to some of their pr outlets, I imagine the sophisticated equipment that the NSA has could do so much effectively and comprehensively.

That would be an effort I could get behind.

Find the funding sources and cut them off.

[alcina]

14. Finally -- thank you!!!

Given how well ISxx exploits the internet for recruitment and publicity, I was hoping Anonymous would eventually use their talents against them.

[calimary]

16. Welcome to DU, alcina!

Glad you're here! Just desserts, seems to me! From time to time, I find myself hoping Anonymous will "git 'em!" Seems as though they're in a position to do the kind of real damage that our more conventional efforts and forces cannot.

[alcina]

17. Thank you, calimary

I've been here a little while, but I usually keep to myself.

The ISxx mob seems to be a somewhat different enemy than we're used to, so finding alternative ways to take them down does seem like a good idea.

[calimary]

19. You make a REEEEEEEALLY good point, alcina!

This is a different era we're in, now. With a very different enemy than we're used to. Seems like a GREAT idea - even an urgent one - to figure out new ways to fight and frustrate and thwart and defeat them. This is the kind of warfare we can wage, effectively, with 20th-Century weapons. All the guns 'n' ammo, the tanks, the ships, the air war, don't really give us that much of an advantage anymore, seems to me. Offensive moves like Anonymous uses - may be the new way.

It made me think back to what I read in school about the British Redcoats versus the ragtag colonists in the New World. The Redcoats thought business-as-usual was to march through the forests and the villages with their bright red coats making them easy targets, easily picked off by snipers and sneak-attacks from the enemy, hiding in wait and throwing whatever they had at the formalized phalanx. Now, granted, what I've learned since my school days calls for a LOT of the seeking of second opinions.

Hey, what do I know? (Said she who never served.)

But maybe we do need to rethink the whole idea of warfare, in this modern age. All the ferocious war toys in the world don't seem to make a difference against an enemy on the ground that's fired up with religious fervor and martyrdom - that metastasizes even more virulently at the drop of a drone bomb.

[R. P. McMurphy]

28. +1

[alcina]

32. I learned the same thing in school

Which always made me wonder why any American was surprised by the guerilla tactics used by other country's fighters. Now that I'm older (and maybe a little wiser), I've come to the conclusion that America, as a nation, does not learn easily from its past.

ISxx seems to be an odd mix of characters -- religious zealots, misanthropes, thrillseekers, and true sociopaths (and various intersections of all types) -- and some articles I've read recently suggest that they're not as cohesive as we might think. Still, the majority have drunk the kool-aid of their charismatic leader and are willing to die for his cause. Which is one of our biggest problems. Because Americans are so individualistic and, as a culture, don't really do that whole personal sacrifice thing, we don't know how to face a person or group of people who are willing to individually sacrifice themselves for what they deem to be the greater good. In fact, in some ways, we do the exact opposite: We'll put the entire group at risk to rescue one person (cf the various military creeds, or Star Trek). But the idea of using a single individual as a weapon of minor-mass destruction is not only repugnant, it's almost incomprehensible. And until you can understand the enemy, you're going to have a really hard time defeating him.

Sadly, I think ISxx understands us pretty well.

[calimary]

41. I think bin Laden certainly understood us pretty well, too.

[freshwest]

49. Disagree with one point: 'any American was surprised by the guerilla tactics used by, etc.'

That's what special forces do, I suspect. While never having an interest in joining the military, but having worked in civilan life with some who served in wars as scouts, Americans really do know about guerilla warfare. But they usually don't talk in public about what they did.

Nor am I applauding the wars they served in. I agree with the take on being in another person's country. Unless the people are ready to get rid of their leader as some were with Saddam, or their government as in some other places, or the Kurds and Shia in Iraq, guerilla actions by us won't work. There must be an alliance somehow.

Conversely, some have been willing to work with special ops to keep their leader or government in place, as some were in Vietnam.

Whether they work with or fight forces from the USA is limited by native patriotism. At this point in time, we have Americans on the right who act like they want to destroy the government so much they say they'd welcome an invasion by whoever they think will give them what they want. Just as in every nation.

And you made a very good analysis.

[BlueJazz]

15. Anonymous are such good people.

[demigoddess]

18. K&R

[herding cats]

20. Why don't Twitter, Facebook, YouTube Tumblr, etc. delete these accounts?

It would seem any ISIS recruitment sites on social media would be subject to the TOS, just like the rest of us are. I've seen social media accounts taken down for much less than the support of a group of murdering terrorist.

If taking these sites down is a solution to a problem, then why are they still up?

[grahamhgreen]

65. It is bizarre to me that they have these accounts at all.

[KeepItReal]

21. Nice work. Too bad Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube aren't proactive.

These US-based companies should apply the same zero-tolerance applied to vile things like child porn to ISIL, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, etc.

I know it's a game of whack-a-mole, but these terrorist groups should not be able to amass thousands of persistent followers on popular social media.

Force them to the dark web.

[juxtaposed]

40. 4 chan? or where? what is the dark web

[KeepItReal]

43. Dark Web = sites/content you can't find with search engines like Google and Yahoo

eom

[red dog 1]

45. Deep Web vs Dark Web

"The Deep Web is anything that a search engine can't access."

"The Dark Web then is classified as a small portion of the Deep Web that has been intentionally hidden and is inaccessible through standard web browsers."

"The most famous content that resides on the Dark Web is found in the TOR network.
The TOR network in an anonymous network that can only be accessed with a special web browser, called the TOR browser.
This is the portion of the Internet most widely known for illicit activities because of the anonymity associated with the TOR network."

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23dklk/eli5_the_difference_between_the_deep_web_and_the/

[juxtaposed]

47. TOR was built by the Navy or DOD.

[Waiting For Everyman]

26. ISIS is a virus alright, it's a disease on humanity

and I'm glad they're going after it. I liked Anonymous before, now I like them more.

You'd think the NSA could've at least kept ISIS from openly recuiting on the internet, for all the invasive bs it puts us through. Goes to show how much it sucks.

[Fred Sanders]

31. Fox has helped out a whole bunch with the vital recruitment drives, haven't they?

Fox embeds the Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a cage video and ISIL immediately links to it and thanks Fox....and Fox then has it embedded by the entire RW web echo chamber and now ISIL can link to many unblockable American sites...with embedded ISIL recruitment video.


An important point made by the video is that “the terrorists that are calling themselves Islamic State (ISIS) are not Muslims.” Anonymous further directs a threat to ISIS itself:

We will hunt you, take down your sites, accounts, emails, and expose you…
From now on, no safe place for you online…

[hue]

34. Too true! Faux Spews is an extremist, propaganda mouth with overlapping views w/other terrorists.

[Waiting For Everyman]

36. It sure did.

I believe in free speech, but this is a clear example where Fox embedding that video does undermine national security.

[Chakaconcarne]

53. fox needs to continually ensure that americans

are riled up or afraid enough to support the feeding frenzy of the m.i.c.

[Fred Sanders]

54. Not just Fox lately, CNN is full aboard the Fear Train.

[hue]

35. ISIS & other religous extremists are all the same CANCER within humanity.

[Waiting For Everyman]

39. Extremists, yes, I can agree with that.

No religion should be forcing anybody to do anything, much less killing people. Once it engages in force or coercion of any kind, it is no longer a legitimate religion imo.

Edit to add:

Btw, as far as Christians go: the New Testament created no religion, no denominations, and no institutions of any kind. It clearly calls individual believers, who because they share a common belief, are then in relationship to each other because of that. Much like any two or more people, who may not even know each other, who share a common interest. Same thing. That, is what the NT says.

A "church" (in Greek, the original NT language) means "called out ones" (from the world at large) not a building or organization, and yes, I studied Ancient Greek Language at a major university for two years, to know that.

Everything else, done in the name of Christianity, is not Christianity. It may be good or it may be bad, but is not Christianity.

[hue]

33. Religious extremism & excuses for terrorism & psychopathic acts have different names , same team.

[Sunlei]

37. The internet is their only power. keep them off. cancel their accounts and ISP as fast as possible.

[Scuba]

42. And somewhere in Langley, Va, the question is asked: "Are you sure they can't trace it to us?"

[Waiting For Everyman]

44. I wouldn't be at all shocked, sad to say. nt

[rhett o rick]

48. Nor I. nm

[Caretha]

67. Hehehe

[jeff47]

69. Close.

Given the content, I'd expect the question to be asked in Fort Meade, MD.

[red dog 1]

46. Go Anonymous!

Thanks for posting, wildwolf

[Pooka Fey]

51. Good job, Anonymous!

[randys1]

52. God I love those people

[applegrove]

55. Um. I think the CIA is paid for and trained to interfear in such a network. If they don't it is

because they are getting information out of it to stop the mind washing and to target ISIS itself on the ground..... in coordination with other Western governments.

[Cha]

57. Hacktivists For Good! I love it! Thank you!

[840high]

60. kick

[Hekate]

62. I wish Anonymous all the luck in the world with this project. nt

[Ilsa]

63. Cool. Anonymous is awesome. nt

[grahamhgreen]

64. Why doesn't our government do this already?

[raouldukelives]

68. I wonder that myself. Perhaps it was too much TV & spy movies as a kid.

I had always secretly felt we had super black op squads and 007 type spies who could infiltrate shadowy groups and bring them down. That our CIA combined with our modern weaponry & technology would be far superior at tracking & striking down an individual terrorist than a full scale military invasion.
Sometimes it seems like those resources are only used against the people who don't support endless war for profit, torture and the death knell of democracy right here at home.
Sometimes I think they don't want to catch terrorists as much as they want to create big dividends for corporate shareholders. But that is the pessimist in me.
I am sure it is all about saving our democracy, keeping us safe and enduring freedom for all people.

[grahamhgreen]

79. It's very hard for me to believe that they cant take down a terror Twitter feed.

[jeff47]

70. Who says we don't?

Not hearing about it is not the same is it not happening.

[DesertDiamond]

66. I wish I were enough of a techie to be a hacker - I'd join these heroes!

[arthritisR_US]

81. Great news! I've been wondering if Anonymous

would get involved in taking down ISIS. Good luck to the hackers, go get the bloody sods!