Greatful for everyone's replys and paradigm testing
Thank you for your reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
selil
Bill your concepts of cyber warfare are about 20 years out of date.
I am glad to hear that, somebody is 20 yrs ahead of us. That pleases me.
Cyber-warfare is a sexed up term to refer to a "terrain".
YES, exactly, we now have the Navy, Air force, Army to handle those "terrains", where are the "cyber forces", In this Terrain USA seems to be MIA.
Much like land warfare, or naval warfare, or air warfare. Computers are tools used for good purposes and bad purposes much the same as tanks and trucks. Metaphorical analysis of cyber warfare will only carry you so far and the over use of the term rather than realistic terms only prejudices people against the topic.
We have tried to demonstrate the practical application of our concept of a "cyber troop", I think the Theory is still being worked out.
They are at war with the USA on the Internet, we reacted.
There is terrorism, it occurs through a variety of devices and techniques, and some of those devices are communications and computer networks. Information warfare uses computers much like it uses mass media but they are not inextricably linked. Command, control, communication, and coordination using information technology (C4IT) can be simplified as "computer mediated". What is missing from your posts (and I must admit the variety of fonts and incoherence of the posts makes them nearly unreadable, some replys have been culled form our Internal docs.I will try and watch it, Thanks) is a basic understanding of commodity computing and computer convergence. These two basic concepts enlighten and inform the conflict scholar about how computers are used and why they are used.
A simple understanding of convergence and commodity tools might help. The ubiquitous refrigerator allowed for fresh foods and longer time in transit for foods. This created a more nutritious and higher value food source for soldiers. Those armies that had access and the resources to use refrigeration had a tactical advantage over their adversaries. Yet we never coined or used the term refrigeration warfare. When high value information technology assets were converged into military supply trains along with refrigeration capability the just in time supply line became a reality for food stuffs. Yet again we did not define war based on just in time inventory or it's convergence with refrigeration.
But we were not fighting on refrigeration trains, we are fighting on the Internet. I think it is a terrain deserving of troops.
C4IT is a converging communication paradigm that is both a tactical tool as well as a strategic terrain. I agree.
USA has run this type of paradigm before, and the result was the Air Force, separated from the Army.
The sooner the USA spins off a "cyber force" the sooner USA will dominate that Terrain also.
All Armed Forces will need to maintain a "cyber" capability dedicated to use of their service.
Bill
DEATH THREATS AGAINST BUSH! HOSTED IN calf
We tracked the web master to Kuwait,
He took web page down over night,
then put it back up under someone else's name and changed text,
Then he says its not monitored.
More here:
Huge campaign to assassinate Bush.
Bill
What to do with the terrorist web sites?
Would like your input/thoughts.
Ddan has an interesting post on the subject: here
What to do with the terrorist web sites?
It is a involoved paradigm, and we are picking our way through the potential mine field.
Some argue to leave them up for the Intel production.
And that some Intel may be lost if they are shut down.
Dan speaks of a tipping point.
I am also looking at a tipping point.
A different tipping point.
Consoider for a moment if ALL terrorist sites were taken down,
one swipe world wide?
That would have a significant impact on recruiting, and generating home grown terrorist, and many other benefits.
Each time a site is shut down, they loose part of their audience,
and loose data and creditability.
Not to mention the security they must build and maintain to set up a new site,
and the psysic energy and the blow to morale, consider loosing your own Blog.
The wasted time setting it back up knowing it will be shut back down again.
and loss of command and control, and com links.
If they email members of the new site then they are also notifying us.
We are hidden in their lists.
We have passwords to most sites, and back doors and mine them for links, urls and members
and copy the entire site before shut down. And are working to make these copies
available to the FEDS, we know they probally have copies already, but in case we take down one that don't have a copy for , we do have the copy. We have the man power to avail our selves
of these capabilities with Company "C".
Company "C" allows me to move from Intel collection and reporting to developing actionable Intel for the FEDS, and planning operations and prosecuting the GWOT with in legal limits.
In an area that needs service.
We also give the FEDS prior notice before we take down a site, and are willing to sign secrecy
agreements on any sites they want to remain up.
Of course it can be argued that this drives them to the Dark web.
Which limits their public recruitment and command and control to the Ummah.
And reduces the number of sites.
And we have moles working in many of these dark sites.
If you have a dark site it limits your recruitment and public influence.
And command and control to a very limited cadre.
The estimates we have seen estimate there are 4,000 terrorist web sites.
We recently took down a little known hub for propaganda distribution.
Thousands of vids very little text.
The number of terror sites hosted by American Companys could be drastically cut
by a few prosecutions under current laws, as it stands now their is no down side
to hosting a terror site other than Bad PR when they are caught, and then they
claim they didn't know. . Violation authority cited:
And many hosts just ignore the complaints, currently without
any prosecutions the law is with out teeth.
Company "C" is looking for an Attorney to file complaints against the
hosts for violation the laws, we can supply the complainant and evidence.
Drive them to web sites in terror supporting countrys and
you open the possibility of direct attacks on servers by USA military.
Under the color of law and war.
We think this is a workable solution to the 4,000 terror web sites
and maintain copies of sites for further study.
Bill