Dear Bin Laden, All Your Websites Are Belong To Us

Seems pretty obvious to me. Would the Bush Admin want a new OBL video coming out and embarrassing them (Republican Party) just before the election? No.
Have they always been able to shut down any website they want? Yes.

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


On the contrary, studies show that terroist activity up to 3 months prior to a vote increases the likelyhood of a right side win.

Surprisingly, who was in charge when terrorist attacks occurred had little effect on the outcomes—either way, the right gained. The study found that left-wing incumbents tended to lose support after attacks while hawkish right-wing incumbents saw their margins of victory increase.

So the question remains, who shut the websites down?

I wonder if the cutting of the cable in the Mediterranean Sea last year may have a part to play into this. I don't have any evidence to back this up but after reading this thread, that's the first thing that popped into my head.

As always makeitso, you provide some interesting information to digest.

reply to post by GAOTU789


You are too kind.


Here is a new MSM article.

Al-Qaida denies Web attack, but its sites struggle

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — The main Web sites that normally carry messages from the al-Qaida terror group remain inoperable more than a month after they went down just ahead of the seventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Associated Press first reported in September that the Web forums that typically carry messages and videos from Al-Qaida and its allied groupings had ceased functioning around Sept. 10, just as the group said it was set to release a new video message.

In the past week, a new Web site called "the Electronic jihad" also has resurfaced to counter renewed attacks on Islam online, according to its founders.

Add this to the mix

Egypt: Sunni scholars sanction 'electronic Jihad'

Cairo, 16 Oct. (AKI) -

Attacking American and Israeli websites by hacking and sabotage is allowed under Islamic law and is a form of 'Jihad' or holy war, top Muslim scholars have decreed.

The religious edict (fatwa) issued by a committee from the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Egypt's Al-Azhar University in Cairo, was published on the website of the Islamist Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood movement on Thursday.

"This is considered a type of lawful Jihad that helps Islam by paralysing the information systems used by our enemies for their evil aims," said the fatwa.

Secondary sites still going down. A couple came back up.

3 of the 4 big sites are still down and don't appear to be able to come back online. The one that is up (hesbah) lost more than half its mirror/backup sites today. Only 4 links left alive for them.

More MSM coverage today.


Cyber-attack theory as al-Qaida websites close

A Sunni-Shiite battle of the website hackers

So its one year later.

Its happening again. Someone is attacking AQ sites and killing them.
And it means another delayed 911 anniversary release from OBL.

Al-Qaida Web sites down ahead of 9/11 anniversary

A U.S.-based group monitoring militant Web sites said Friday that jihadist forums have been experiencing technical problems A U.S.-based group monitoring militant Web sites said Friday that jihadist forums have been experiencing technical problems

9/11 Brings Mayhem to Jihadi Internet

On the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the major jihadist web forums appear to be the target of a coordinated attack. The two most important websites have been taken down: Al-Falluja is not working at all, and on Shumukh Al-Islam all links just lead to a statement from the forum saying that "the enemies of Allah" are trying to "silence the voice of truth." Al-Shura is also offline.

The Ansar Al-Mujahideen forum was down temporarily, but has managed to return and lash out at the "worshippers of Satan" supposedly behind the coordinated attack. The other forums appear to be operating as usual.

If an Al-Qaeda 9/11 release exists, its distribution has been blocked (for now at least).

Those aren't the only sited down, there are many more.




[edit on 9/11/09 by makeitso]

But where are they going to get new videos of Bin Laden? A seance? Ouija board?

I'm convinced he's dead simply because the UK government don't want the fact discussed. Before her death, Benazir Bhutto was being interviewed on al-Jazeera by David Frost, and she mentioned a name, then interjected, "the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden."

When the interview was replayed on the BBC, they edited out that phrase. You can find it on YouTube if you want.

How many of these terrorist cells are being run by the security services anyway?

Hi Rich,

Have not seen you for awhile.

Dead or not, year after year OBL 911 anniversary statements have been released on a multitude of terror websites.

Last year they were prevented from releasing an OBL anniversary statement for over a week by the killing of the websites.

This year there is no 911 anniversary statement.

Is it due to the sites being taken out, or something else?
Who is taking out the sites?
Why just the last 2 years?

Maybe these articles answer a few of my many questions.

Note the begining date of this thread vs the date the articles discuss.

Spy Forums

In a remarkable story, the Washington Post reported today that Saudi intelligence and the CIA operated a honeypot jihadi forum for years until it was shut down by the US military in 2008. The news here is obviously not that intelligence services run jihadi forums, but that US agencies wage cyberwarfare on each other.

WaPo

By early 2008, top U.S. military officials had become convinced that extremists planning attacks on American forces in Iraq were making use of a Web site set up by the Saudi government and the CIA to uncover terrorist plots in the kingdom.

"We knew we were going to be forced to shut this thing down," recalled one former civilian official, describing tense internal discussions in which military commanders argued that the site was putting Americans at risk. "CIA resented that," the former official said.

Elite U.S. military computer specialists, over the objections of the CIA, mounted a cyberattack that dismantled the online forum. Although some Saudi officials had been informed in advance about the Pentagon's plan, several key princes were "absolutely furious" at the loss of an intelligence-gathering tool, according to another former U.S. official.

[edit on 3/20/10 by makeitso]

Apparently I am missing something. Why do you folks embrace censoring of the net?
One can use the concept of terrorism to shut down a website, however what does that say about their ( CIA NSA USAF ?? Etc ) ability to randomly chose any ole website, claiming it is supportive of an agenda that supports terrorism. I find this very disturbing.
Especially so, considering the net is the last bastion of free speech. A very slippery slope
that is being championed with your joyful support.

Originally posted by dazbog
Apparently I am missing something. Why do you folks embrace censoring of the net?
One can use the concept of terrorism to shut down a website, however what does that say about their ( CIA NSA USAF ?? Etc ) ability to randomly chose any ole website, claiming it is supportive of an agenda that supports terrorism. I find this very disturbing.
Especially so, considering the net is the last bastion of free speech. A very slippery slope that is being championed with your joyful support.

I would find randomly choosing any old website disturbing too.

But its clear from your post that you are missing something.
You have not have visited the discussed sites.
You have not followed the information.
They are not any ol site, nor are they random.

Therefore, your choice to denouce an action you are not informed about, and to characterize them as random is disturbing.

That being said, there is a huge ongoing debate within the CT, intelligence, military, and gov groups about the legalities, ethics, freedom of speach issues, intelligence value, etc. about leaving them up or taking them down. The article I posted above delves into that a little. But they are aware of the issues, and are not calling them "random ol sites". They are well aware of what is taking place online, and the ramifications of both sides of the issue.

Is it OK for a mass murderer to have multiple websites dedicated to recruiting, training, planning, and staging more mass murders? Is that a freedom of speach issue? Is that a random ol website? Should one leave the website up and collect intel, or take it down to help prevent the recruiting, etc?

If a person is a designated terrorist, has all his assets frozen, has warrants for his arrest by multiple countries, and a company accepts payment from him to create and run a such a website, are they not in violation of the law? Should a blind eye be turned? Is that freedom of speach?

If someone murdered your parents, brothers or sisters, are they allowed to post graphic details on how they did it? Post videos of it? Get funding to recruit others in a concerted effort to continue killing your family members? Make plans of exactly how to do it? Post the exact steps to make a poison or chemical explosives in an effort to teach someone how to kill you? Is that free speach?

The questions go on and on. They are good questions.

Blanket denunciations and misrepresentations do not help answer the questions.









[edit on 3/20/10 by makeitso]

Originally posted by makeitso

Originally posted by dazbog
Apparently I am missing something. Why do you folks embrace censoring of the net?
One can use the concept of terrorism to shut down a website, however what does that say about their ( CIA NSA USAF ?? Etc ) ability to randomly chose any ole website, claiming it is supportive of an agenda that supports terrorism. I find this very disturbing.
Especially so, considering the net is the last bastion of free speech. A very slippery slope that is being championed with your joyful support.

I would find randomly choosing any old website disturbing too.

But its clear from your post that you are missing something.
You have not have visited the discussed sites.
You have not followed the information.
They are not any ol site, nor are they random.

Therefore, your choice to denouce an action you are not informed about, and to characterize them as random is disturbing.

That being said, there is a huge ongoing debate within the CT, intelligence, military, and gov groups about the legalities, ethics, freedom of speach issues, intelligence value, etc. about leaving them up or taking them down. The article I posted above delves into that a little. But they are aware of the issues, and are not calling them "random ol sites". They are well aware of what is taking place online, and the ramifications of both sides of the issue.

Is it OK for a mass murderer to have multiple websites dedicated to recruiting, training, planning, and staging more mass murders? Is that a freedom of speach issue? Is that a random ol website? Should one leave the website up and collect intel, or take it down to help prevent the recruiting, etc?

If a person is a designated terrorist, has all his assets frozen, has warrants for his arrest by multiple countries, and a company accepts payment from him to create and run a such a website, are they not in violation of the law? Should a blind eye be turned? Is that freedom of speach?

If someone murdered your parents, brothers or sisters, are they allowed to post graphic details on how they did it? Post videos of it? Get funding to recruit others in a concerted effort to continue killing your family members? Make plans of exactly how to do it? Post the exact steps to make a poison or chemical explosives in an effort to teach someone how to kill you? Is that free speach?

The questions go on and on. They are good questions.

Blanket denunciations and misrepresentations do not help answer the questions.




Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say nor imply these particular sites were selected at random. And for the record I do not support ANY censorship PERIOD ! < There ya go I just solved the problem !
You obviously have very strong opinions on this issue. However from what you just stated it would appear you are in favor of this specific type of censorship. And please lets not confuse this with anything other then censorship, regardless of who may be the instigator.








[edit on 3/20/10 by makeitso]

Originally posted by dazbog
Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say nor imply these particular sites were selected at random.

This thread is about these specific sites. Posting your statement on a thread about them does imply they were the sites you were speaking of. Sorry, no offense was intended.

And for the record I do not support ANY censorship PERIOD ! < There ya go I just solved the problem !

You obviously have very strong opinions on this issue. However from what you just stated it would appear you are in favor of this specific type of censorship. And please lets not confuse this with anything other then censorship, regardless of who may be the instigator.

Thats wonderful for you. I'm positive there are several open threads with the main topic of censorship, where you can vigorously debate that topic.

On the other hand, this old thread was asking questions. Primarily about the w's elementary school taught. Who (took these sites down). Why (were they taken down), etc.

I thought I'd update the thread with the links I posted from WaPo and Jihadica that allege to have answers to some of those questions.

The article says the CIA were actually running one of these sites. They say that the Military saw to it that it was removed, because it was getting soldiers killed. There appears to have been quite heated debates about the appropriateness of taking it down. They don't specify which one of these sites were run by them, although the Jihadica link by Thomas Hegghammer suspects it was the al-Hesbah forum.

These reports bring up more questions than they answer. Some questions are about the suicide bomber who killed the 6-8 CIA agents in Afghanistan since he is reported to have been a moderator and frequent poster at the al-Hesbah forum.




[edit on 3/20/10 by makeitso]

So, the anniversary of 9-11 is coming up quick.

Wondering if another OBL anniversary video was soon to be released, or if their sites would get shut down again I started poking around.

The english "Inspire" webzine was published on the faloja forum. First with a, um, shall we say, a flaw. The forum admins quickly posted that nobody should open it. Then the site shut down. Reopened. Posted that it was shutting down permanently in a week. Then they changed their mind and decided to stay open.

Next thing you know the forum is gone:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0fe545655754.jpg[/atsimg]

Also, on a certain Facebook account, someone posted a guide to the Global Jihad. Shortly their Facebook pages were, ah, "martyred".

There are rumors that the al-andalus media have been infiltrated by a gov.

The Chechen's deny the russians acquired a copy of their database.

Now the owner/webmaster of the Ansar al Mujahideen got himself arrested.

Seems like a trend this month. I've a feeling there is more to come.



So begins the webwar. Again...

Dear Bin Laden - All Your Websites Are Belong To Us


Ref
Ref
Ref



[edit on 8/31/10 by makeitso]

Looks like I'm not the only one wondering what will happen this year.

This Sept. 11, Will Terror Sites Get Hacked Again?

Jihadi websites are in for a bruising, if the past is any precedent.

For the past two years, Islamic extremists’ online forums have been subjected to a series of attacks around the 9/11 anniversary — just as the jihadists worked to score a propaganda win. Major sites have been shut down, some permanently.

reply to post by asmeone2

More proof they are really not serious about the war on terror IMO.

The very term, "war on terror" is a farce, the wars are fought between secret societies for money and power, mineral resources, energy, the drug trade, and human trafficking, all behind the scenes, while real fighting men and woman from human ranks do the real shooting. You see, there is no way to have Peace. TBTB knows if the world was at peace, they would shortly be out of work. The exist to protect us from the enemy, whichever one TPTB are using at the time. Without a threat, they would be
unnecessary. Besides, without secret drug money there could be no Black Projects, secret Satellites, Deep Underground Military Bases, Seed Banks, interplanetary base set-up missions. The government we can all see is not the ones running the show, we cannot see them. Yet.

Reply to post by autowrench

I disagree. We will never have peace because human beings are selfish greedy creatures, not because of some group who's sole purpose is to keep us fighting with each other. We will always find some reason to hate each other or to wasn't to take what someone else has. No external force is necessary.

Back to the OP, I was hoping it was anonymous.. Not that I'm surprised by who was really behind it.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com