How do you change the perception?

[BILL]

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

[Ken White]

Some disagree...

LINK

[BILL]

The argument seems to be leave the terrorist sites up to collect Intel,
Well the total number have grown to over 4,000. sites.
And the sites are recruiting others and the number of sites continue to grow.

This paradigm will insure the growth of Jahiddie sites, at what point do they put stopping recruitment ahead of intel gathering?

Feels like the cart before the horse.

Watch them grow and collect info???

Bizzar
G

[selil]

Taking down the "terrorist" websites completely is the metaphorical form of conventional warfare versus small wars type doctrine or counter insurgency. Wholesale disruption of terrorist websites would be denying the insurgent the terrain. When in reality according to counter insurgency you wish to change the perception of the insurgent not embolden them to new or higher levels. You don't want to create an asymmetric arms race that only they can win. It could be argued that destruction of the terrorist communication mechanism actually hurts the effort.

[BILL]

"It could be argued that destruction of the terrorist communication mechanism actually hurts the effort."
AND
"You don't want to create an asymmetric arms race that only they can win."

Gee Selil you must be playing devils advocate.

I was speechless.
If this is the paradigm then its gone around the Bend, the work product has superseded the Goal.
That seems akin to "giving them bullets so we can see where they are", when they shoot at us.
The hard core are not likely to be converted.

"an asymmetric arms race that only they can win"
I couldn't disagree more.

The only way THEY can win on the WWW is if USA doesn't mount an offensive.

It sounds like it may have been decided USA can't win on the WWW.

Watch Company "C" we will curb them.

Thanks for your comment.


Bill

[slapout9]

Would like your input/thoughts.




Company "C" is looking for an Attorney to file complaints against the
hosts for violation the laws, we can supply the complainant and evidence.


Bill

[/B][/B]

You might want to try the SPLC Southern Poverty Law Center, they have done some things like this in the past, but it usually against Domestic groups. http://www.splcenter.org/index.jsp

[BILL]

Excellent Idea
DONE.

Bill