Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Al-Qaeda Web Sites Go Offline

Posted by kdawson on Sat Oct 18, 2008 04:52 PM
from the i-hack-you dept.
thefickler writes "Four out of the five Al-Qaeda online forums have disappeared. The terrorist group used these forums to relay messages to its supporters. The four that have gone missing seem to have taken a hit back on September 10, the day before the annual video marking the 9/11 attacks was due to be disseminated. No one knows who is responsible for the sites' disappearance."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • good. (Score:4, Funny)

    by swschrad (312009) on Saturday October 18 2008, @04:56PM (#25426691) Homepage Journal

    but you know it means they're doing something else now.

    I suspect it's how Sarah Palin jokes are strung together that is the new medium. they're ubiquitous and cannot be stopped by any force known to mankind.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        I think you didn't RTFA carefully enough. It says it's talking about private, password-protected sites. So even if they did provide links, all you could "verify" is either that they have indeed linked to a site that doesn't exist (and how would you be able to tell whether it really had been an al-Qaeda site before?), or to some kind of login page (and, without a password, how would you be able to tell whether it was really an al-Qaeda site or just a random anonymous login page?)

        This is nothing to do with

  • Yeah... so what? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by vintagepc (1388833) on Saturday October 18 2008, @04:56PM (#25426693) Journal
    I wonder as to the real value of posting something like this; Who says that they have not devised some more secure method of communication. Sounds like false hope to me.
    • by clang_jangle (975789) * on Saturday October 18 2008, @05:16PM (#25426821)
      More to the point: who says they were ever the real thing in the first place? The government? Puh-leeeeze.
      • by Macrat (638047) on Saturday October 18 2008, @05:24PM (#25426875)
        The government budget to run these sites has been transferred to bailing out the banks.
        • No, the "terrorists" are done cleaning up after manipulating the market and making billions of whatever currency they use, so there's no need for those sites anymore. They have a new geocities URL. And will be conducting business as usual. Just like WAMUJPMorganChase.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2008, @11:57PM (#25429009)

          The government budget to run these sites has been transferred to bailing out the banks.

          This is probably the smartest commend I've read here!

          Al-Qaeda was a CIA DB name for the mujahedin back in the 80's.

          They are 100% CIA asset, commanded and funded by the CIA.

          Now lets joke on the truth:

          So either they removed the funds, or Al-Qaeda ppl are too busy growing heroin for the NYSE bubble.

          Americans be aware: You are a great nation, awesome people, and your government is making you look really REALLY bad. When the BIG shit hits the fan "they" will bail out, and you will take the heat! Don't you feel your freedom fading away? The world will hate you.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            I hope that's a joke. The formation of Al Qaeda didn't occur until August 1988, at the very end of the Soviet invasion. It wasn't a CIA database name, it was short for Al Qaeda al-Askariya (the military base). It wasn't directly funded by the CIA either. The CIA gave money, which was matched by the Saudi's to the Pakistani ISI who then channeled it to the various Mujaheddin groups (of which bin Ladin was not one). He had most of his own funding from his families money and from Saudi donors. The fact t
    • Marginally disrupting enemy communications ? Or eavesdropping on said communications. If this was the US military, it only means that they have devised another way to eavesdrop. Perhaps they have figured out that they will now use SMS and have devised a way to geographically locate such SMS transmissions. Pure conjecture of course.
  • Yes, really. Apparently.

    In one of the most transparently stupid "LOOK! TERRORISTS!" stories to date, The Times has "exclusively" published a report claiming terrorists are hiding their secret terrorist messages inside child pornography [timesonline.co.uk]. Because, y'know, obviously you're going to hide your messages somewhere already illegal rather than in wedding photos or LOLcats.

    I'm pleased to say that the commenters on the article - and UK newspaper online comments are one of the purest sources of raw stupid on the planet - are already condemning this as obvious Home Office press-release ware.

    The Times has been spotted running press releases for the Home Office before [blogspot.com] with jawdroppingly stupid scare stories. Coincidentally, the Home Office's call for the police to be able to hold people 42 days without charge just got rejected. Obviously not linked.

    I wrote a blog post [today.com] on it, but I'm not sure it's obviously a parody of a stupid thing that someone actually tried to seriously push.

  • by Deadstick (535032) on Saturday October 18 2008, @04:59PM (#25426711)

    ...when the drums stop.

    rj

  • by symes (835608) on Saturday October 18 2008, @05:00PM (#25426733) Journal
    ZZ Top [zztop.com] issued a take down notive under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act...
  • Hrm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by colonslashslash (762464) on Saturday October 18 2008, @05:02PM (#25426745) Homepage
    US military Cyber Warfare [slashdot.org] project starts up again, and suddenly Osama's MySpace gets ruined. Coincidence?
  • by ffejie (779512) on Saturday October 18 2008, @05:18PM (#25426833)
    "For al-Qaeda, "these sites are the equivalent of pentagon.mil, whitehouse.gov, att.com," said Evan F. Kohlmann, an expert on online al-Qaeda operations..."

    Apparently he's not an expert on American communications - who get any information from the three sites he called out?
    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday October 18 2008, @05:42PM (#25427015) Journal
      As you say, nobody ever found anything useful on whitehouse.gov; but many a curious child found all sorts of information on whitehouse.com. Obviously, Mr. Kohlmann is an al-Qaeda plant, informing the other operatives that the real website is just a TLD away from the one that got shut down.
  • by gchesney0001 (667278) on Saturday October 18 2008, @05:48PM (#25427057)
    Some much for net-neutrality.
  • we don't want them shut down

    let them communicate openly. then track the fuckers. now their communication is more hidden, and thus our knowledge of what's going on

      • you don't understand what motivates them

        religious bigotry is bottomless pit of slime which constantly renews

        all you need is arrogance and a feeling of superiority

        and then "god" gives you the right to kill subhumans

        subhumans are anyone who doesn't believe as you do

  • by Animats (122034) on Saturday October 18 2008, @05:55PM (#25427129) Homepage

    The classic site was Voice of Jihad [sawtaljihad.com], but that's been more or less dead for a while. Back in August, it was apparently taken over by some McCain supporter. Now it's a misconfigured shared-IP site on Dreamhost.

    bin Laden's annual video didn't get much press this year. He's released his 2008 video, and it's 87 minutes long, but it's hard to find. Reuters has a summary. [reuters.com].

    I suspect that the main reason there's pressure to suppress his videos is that he always has something tellingly negative to say about Bush. This year, bin Laden's sound bite is "And in fact, the subject of the Mujahideen has become an inseparable part of the speech of your leader and the effects and signs are not hidden."

    It's worth remembering that the bin Laden family supported Bush's first presidential campaign. [denverpost.com] In 1978, Bush and Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem bin Laden, founded Arbusto Energy, an oil company based in Texas. Sometimes one wonders if the plan was to get an incompetent into the US presidency, then apply enough pressure to make him overreact. A pre 9-11 bio of bin Laden, "The Man who Declared War on America", has quotes from him indicating that he felt America needed to be corrupted before it could be taken down, and outlined what needed to be done to make that happen. All the family had to do was to get someone in office who thought tax cuts would fix anything, get him to overspend on the wrong war, and wait for the US economy to collapse.

    We may yet see a "Mission Accomplished" from bin Laden.

    • by bonch (38532) on Saturday October 18 2008, @06:22PM (#25427281)

      Actually, I suspect the reason his videos aren't reported as much is that whenever Bin Laden shows his face, it energizes Americans and makes them more likely to vote Republican. The media is ridiculously pro-Obama this year and does not want a repeat of 2004 when Bin Laden released a video and threatened Americans a week before the election. We're in a media environment in which the New York Times will run an editorial by Obama but refuse to run one by McCain. Comedians mock Sarah Palin's apparent stupidity while ignoring that Joe Biden said Americans were huddled around television sets to see President Roosevelt [politico.com]. Palin is criticized for her religious views, yet Obama is a Christian who went to the church of reverend Wright for 20 years, and Joe Biden is a Catholic (amazingly, McCain is the least religious candidate).

      So I wouldn't worry about any Bin Laden videos popping up to energize conservative voters this time.

      • by gregbot9000 (1293772) <mckinleg@csusb.edu> on Saturday October 18 2008, @08:36PM (#25427955) Journal
        You are ignoring the very real fact that news is a money making enterprise. There is absolutely no way for the "media" to run as tight a control as you just described. You see, news is like any product, if the news companies don't follow the popular trends they lose money, heaps of it.

        So someone like you who is holding on to a position that a lot of people are moving away from will think the shift in media attention is directed from the top down, instead of from the bottom up, that the media is changing things instead of reporting on changing opinions.

        You are suffering from what I like to call the "Fringe Media Censorship Bias," which is where people with marginal or fringe beliefs often attribute their beliefs lack of representation in the "media" to some sort of censorship, rather then a lack of interest from the rest of society. Some, like Noam Chomsky, suffer from this condition to the extent where they write whole books trying to rationalize that it's the "media" ignoring them and not just society in general.

        Osama probably didn't get the air time because he's old hat. Your example is from what? 4 years ago? Christ thats a generation in media years. And Palin is dumb, and that's a story that sells.
            • Your point is solid, because what's relevant is whether that's been true recently--let's say, the last hundred years. It is, however, factually false. The religious views of all the founding fathers and early presidents are not all known, and they are certainly not all the same, but the common theme is Deism. (There are good articles on the subject but I'm reluctant to link one without checking it; you can easily search for "founding fathers" "deism" and evaluate the claims for yourself, if you wish.)
                • George Washington did not claim to be of Christian faith. Note that he did not claim otherwise, either, but it was slightly controversial at the time, and certainly not implied by his silence. I'd like to offer the following quotes from this site [infidels.org]. (I have not checked their quotes against the primary sources.)

                  In concluding the interview, Dr. Wilson said "I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges him self as a believ

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Reference on the family disowning him please? I recall something about suspicions that he was still receiving money from them... but have no references for that either.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You were marked troll for your foul language. Try harder next time bitch.

  • If these sites are down, how will Al-Qaeda make its pre-election rant against the Republican candidate like they did four years ago? If they once again want the Republicans to win (more likely in their view to create the clash of civilizations that they're dreaming of) how will they pull that off this time?

    We know that Hamas has endorsed Obama. Maybe bin Laden will do the same just to make sure that McCain is elected and the US can more easily be painted as the Great Satan.

  • hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thatskinnyguy (1129515) on Saturday October 18 2008, @06:27PM (#25427323)
    Perhaps Anonymous did something good and remains anonymous instead of taking credit for things like they normally would.
  • Sites (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mqduck (232646) <(ten.kcudqm) (ta) (kcudqm)> on Saturday October 18 2008, @10:47PM (#25428667)

    Does anybody know where to *find* these sites? Even Wikipedia won't supply links.

  • Anonymous forums (Score:3, Interesting)

    by skeeto (1138903) on Sunday October 19 2008, @02:49AM (#25429725) Homepage
    Freenet has distributed (by its nature), anonymous, uncensorable forum software [wikipedia.org]. I wonder if they will go/have gone that route.
    • Re:fp (Score:5, Funny)

      by BrentH (1154987) on Saturday October 18 2008, @04:59PM (#25426715)
      I think I speak for all of us when I say: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
      • Re:fp (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Saturday October 18 2008, @05:22PM (#25426859)

        I think I speak for all of us when I say: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

        No, you are just speaking for people with really high UIDs.

        That post was a cut-n-paste of a tired, old troll posting with the slight up date of using Obama instead of some random jock twink type.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It's just cuntpaste.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Allah and God are the same entity. But batman and the Easter bunny are separate. But your comment was along the lines of Bob Dole did it along with the help of Bob Dole and some other people.