How do you change the perception?

[selil]

Repetition in refutation while supporting a polarized position as you have done BILL does not empower discussion. Simply repeating and not providing clarifying information rarely will illuminate that which is not understood. Further simple refutation through statements of polarization also rarely provide the foundations for understanding.

As an example you castigate my commentary in regards to dialog through statements of absurdity "Billions of dollars", and yet dialog can between the sender and receiver, or among multiple receivers of a message. You burn discussion in the flames of absurdity. Further corroboration of evidence from tainted sources or sources encumbered by political ideology rarely informs discussion it merely inflames passions and kills reason.

Your commentary reminds me of an information operation ran by Dr. Fred Cohen against subscribers of his information warfare discussion list. In violation of about every independent research board rule I know of. The people within the discussion were unaware of the reasons or content of commentary and the goals of some participants. Taking action against the unsuspecting for any reason in the pursuit of science has a tendency to taint the science.

I imagine forums like this do provide an excellent resource for recruitment to like minded individuals in first world countries. There might be a few people around who have made substantial scholarly efforts towards proving those methods even here on this forum. You have yet to make a substantive case BILL for similar activities in third world countries. I am deeply interested in any realistic or untainted corroborating evidence you might suggest or produce in regards to cyber-warfare or command, control, coordination, communication utilizing information technology (C4IT) within third world countries by terrorist entities.

[Ron Humphrey]

Repetition in refutation while supporting a polarized position as you have done BILL does not empower discussion. Simply repeating and not providing clarifying information rarely will illuminate that which is not understood. Further simple refutation through statements of polarization also rarely provide the foundations for understanding.

As an example you castigate my commentary in regards to dialog through statements of absurdity "Billions of dollars", and yet dialog can between the sender and receiver, or among multiple receivers of a message. You burn discussion in the flames of absurdity. Further corroboration of evidence from tainted sources or sources encumbered by political ideology rarely informs discussion it merely inflames passions and kills reason.

Your commentary reminds me of an information operation ran by Dr. Fred Cohen against subscribers of his information warfare discussion list. In violation of about every independent research board rule I know of. The people within the discussion were unaware of the reasons or content of commentary and the goals of some participants. Taking action against the unsuspecting for any reason in the pursuit of science has a tendency to taint the science.

I imagine forums like this do provide an excellent resource for recruitment to like minded individuals in first world countries. There might be a few people around who have made substantial scholarly efforts towards proving those methods even here on this forum. You have yet to make a substantive case BILL for similar activities in third world countries. I am deeply interested in any realistic or untainted corroborating evidence you might suggest or produce in regards to cyber-warfare or command, control, coordination, communication utilizing information technology (C4IT) within third world countries by terrorist entities.

remind me not to read your posts too much because my supply of advil is running exceedingly low

[selil]

remind me not to read your posts too much because my supply of advil is running exceedingly low

I was exercising my thesaurus and I think I broke it.

[BILL]

selil let me get my dictionary out digram some of those sentences and I'll work up a reply. I have a huge supply of Advil.

Thanks for the Direction.

Bill
I've built my work on deductive reasoning, and presented examples without the bridging steps, assuming they would be self apparent.
They are NOT.
The deductive reasoning is based on first hand experience, participant observation,
which is a quick way to develop hypothesis and test them.

I'm not adhering to standards of clarity or argument within the ontology.

To damn many trees, I'll work on it.

[JeffC]

Repetition in refutation while supporting a polarized position as you have done BILL does not empower discussion. Simply repeating and not providing clarifying information rarely will illuminate that which is not understood. Further simple refutation through statements of polarization also rarely provide the foundations for understanding.

As an example you castigate my commentary in regards to dialog through statements of absurdity "Billions of dollars", and yet dialog can between the sender and receiver, or among multiple receivers of a message. You burn discussion in the flames of absurdity. Further corroboration of evidence from tainted sources or sources encumbered by political ideology rarely informs discussion it merely inflames passions and kills reason.

Your commentary reminds me of an information operation ran by Dr. Fred Cohen against subscribers of his information warfare discussion list. In violation of about every independent research board rule I know of. The people within the discussion were unaware of the reasons or content of commentary and the goals of some participants. Taking action against the unsuspecting for any reason in the pursuit of science has a tendency to taint the science.

I imagine forums like this do provide an excellent resource for recruitment to like minded individuals in first world countries. There might be a few people around who have made substantial scholarly efforts towards proving those methods even here on this forum. You have yet to make a substantive case BILL for similar activities in third world countries. I am deeply interested in any realistic or untainted corroborating evidence you might suggest or produce in regards to cyber-warfare or command, control, coordination, communication utilizing information technology (C4IT) within third world countries by terrorist entities.

Yeah, what you said!

[BILL]

Selil: "In violation of about every independent research board rule I know of. The people within the discussion were unaware of the reasons or content of commentary and the goals of some participants. Taking action against the unsuspecting for any reason in the pursuit of science has a tendency to taint the science."

I tend to agree with you, "violation of about every independent research board rule I know of", and we looked at a disclosure notice:

" We will be performing participant observation on this forum and across the Internet in an attempt to influence Terrorists, insurgents and fellow travelers. The methods employed may include propaganda ( truth ), spin, ridicule, psyops, paradigm Intelligence, applied anthropology, proprietary Technology and covert activities to implement social change, our work could lead to the arrest and or killing of terrorist.
Your discussions on this board could lead to your death if you are a terrorist."

Of course that notice in and of its self would be used as psyops.

As a former military service person ( ARMY, G7 ) , I would kill al Qaeda my self given the chance.
And I'm sure that violates more academic proscriptions.

USA is at war, we have made certain decisions regarding disclosure and will live with them.
This decision was not made lightly.

I sincerely apologize if this offends you academically,
But the disclosure seems contrary to our objectives.

We are not in the "pursuit of science", we are using that science in the pursuit of terrorists.
"has a tendency to taint the science", our objective is to form the point of a spear in the "softwar" utilizing that science.

I do appreciate your warning.

I live with my sin.

Bill and Team

.

[Surferbeetle]

The phrase "By Sword, Deed, and Word" is a pithy one that bears reflecting upon. Tempest in a teacup also comes to mind...

My experience in Iraq is that there is a very strong (much much stronger than the internet) spoken information network. 'Information' was passed rapidly among friends and acquaintances, and like the childhood game of 'telephone' things would get garbled from time to time. Concrete things like access to water or electricity or the freedom to go to the market or visit friends with minimal security worries, and jobs were things that would get quickly passed along the spoken information network. Perhaps this information network accounts for some share of the successes we are seeming to have with the US & Iraqi surge ( http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...ing_al_qae.php )

Here in the west, in the land of abundance, we like to gather around the electronic campfire and talk, and perhaps as a result of this cultural tick, we have a distorted view of the internet's importance. This is not to negate the importance of C2I to any organization or indeed the continually rising power of the internet. As an old grunt who has been around the block once or twice however it always seems that in order to really influence things one needs to have boots on the ground in order to get things done. Handbills, paper or electronic, are not enough.

[BILL]

Exclusive:
http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/12...ventlator.html

Bill

[JeffC]

Hey BILL;

Selil went to great lengths to address several points about your reply, all of which you seem to have missed. So in the interests of clarity, and of re-focusing this discussion, here's my take on what you might want to address in Selil's post to you in order to bring this conversation back around to the topic of this thread. (Sam, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting any of these):

1. When questioned about something that you've posted, provide additional clarifying information. Don't simply repeat what you've already said.
2. Avoid using polarizing language.
3. Instead of pulling from biased (i.e. "tainted) sources, look for objective sources to make your point.
4. You're invited to provide corroborating evidence from objective sources that supports your case that Jihadist Web sites are conducting Cyber warfare activities in 3rd world nations.

If you look at your reply to Selil, you failed to address all of those points, choosing instead to focus on one example that Selil used (an IO run by Fred Cohen), and even then your answer relied on polarizing language and false assumptions for the sake of some perceived emotional appeal.

Bottom line - we all love good discussions and/or debates. But in order for that to happen, both parties have to make an effort to understand what the other party is saying, and follow some basic "Rules of Engagement", such as the ones recommended to you by Selil.

[Ken White]

Selil: "In violation of about every independent research board rule I know of. The people within the discussion were unaware of the reasons or content of commentary and the goals of some participants. Taking action against the unsuspecting for any reason in the pursuit of science has a tendency to taint the science."
. . .
I do appreciate your warning.

I live with my sin.

Bill and Team

Glad you're here but as a couple of folks have pointed out to you, a decent and civil discussion requires at least two coherent participants.

It would be really helpful if you could avoid the riddles and just say what you mean. Can't speak for the others but I'm a little slow and don't really understand the points you seem to wish to make.

Thanks,

Ken

[BILL]

JeffC:
I'm addressing the points one at a time, as time allows.
I clarified our data collection methods and our reasoning/logic
in regards to board rules.

I'm going to need some practice with non-polarizing language.

I'm collecting evidence for C4IT in 3rd world nations.

Bill

Hey BILL;

Selil went to great lengths to address several points about your reply, all of which you seem to have missed. So in the interests of clarity, and of re-focusing this discussion, here's my take on what you might want to address in Selil's post to you in order to bring this conversation back around to the topic of this thread. (Sam, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting any of these):

1. When questioned about something that you've posted, provide additional clarifying information. Don't simply repeat what you've already said.

2. Avoid using polarizing language.

3. Instead of pulling from biased (i.e. "tainted) sources, look for objective sources to make your point.

4. You're invited to provide corroborating evidence from objective sources that supports your case that Jihadist Web sites are conducting Cyber warfare activities in 3rd world nations.

If you look at your reply to Selil, you failed to address all of those points, choosing instead to focus on one example that Selil used (an IO run by Fred Cohen), and even then your answer relied on polarizing language and false assumptions for the sake of some perceived emotional appeal.



Bottom line - we all love good discussions and/or debates. But in order for that to happen, both parties have to make an effort to understand what the other party is saying, and follow some basic "Rules of Engagement", such as the ones recommended to you by Selil.

[BILL]

Glad you're here but as a couple of folks have pointed out to you, a decent and civil discussion requires at least two coherent participants.

It would be really helpful if you could avoid the riddles and just say what you mean. Can't speak for the others but I'm a little slow and don't really understand the points you seem to wish to make.

Thanks,

Ken

In the social sciences, in field work there are certain protocols for the protection of indigenous populations and board reviews for standards.

One of these protocols can be a notice/disclosure of intent/purpose and method.

Our work on the Insurgent forums might not pass a board review.
A "SIN" for practitioners.

Bill

[Rex Brynen]

It would be really helpful if you could avoid the riddles and just say what you mean. Can't speak for the others but I'm a little slow and don't really understand the points you seem to wish to make.

I'll admit, I'm in much the same position... (nor can I make much sense of the website or "database" that you've pointed us too, BILL).

[BILL]

It is a data base of terror related info including terrorist web sites, code, graphs, forums, yahoo groups etc.
We believe it is the largest list of terrorist related sites on the Internet.
Page 1
Page 2

It is used mostly ( according to our logs ) for data mining, and Google searches.

Consider how we are asked to use the search function on this forum,
see Forum Organization,( the same concept applies to the data base ).

Lot of data sorted and organized by user's search engine, The search engine will know where everything is, user just requests the info.
There is no formal organization.
The Google Toolbar , for the browser, for example has a function to search only the site one is on.
This could be used to search the 'data base' for any info one wants.

Bill

I'll admit, I'm in much the same position... (nor can I make much sense of the website or "database" that you've pointed us too, BILL).

[Ron Humphrey]

I'll admit, I'm in much the same position... (nor can I make much sense of the website or "database" that you've pointed us too, BILL).

BILL,

I have always found that perception is in many cases as you have stated somewhat succinctly, reality to those who choose it. And that in general any thing viewed, heard, related often enough to an audience tends to gain a more legitimate appearance despite its true validity or absolute BSedness( Yes I made that up More fun than reading a thesaurus).

This being the case however does ground truth, or real reality ever change.
No

Any efforts at approaching propaganda, training or otherwise should be focused on the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth because there and there alone is the ultimate proactive cure to their ilk found. Being reactive in a reverse psychology kind of way is effective(within its required realm) which in war should be within direct interaction with or against an enemy.

If we allow ourselves to fall into the pattern of "besting" them at their own game then in the end you lose because you are now playing their game.

Part of what has always separated America from other parts of the world is that we push the limits of allowing freedom to where you almost lose them but we always catch ourselves at some point and manage to bring it back to a working democracy. When and if you begin to play by their ( the bad guys) rules than that is lost and you may not come back.

It doesn't take a messenger proclaiming the dangers of a crack house in the neighborhood for folks to know its there and figure they want something done about it. It just takes an 800 number for them to call to get something done about it.

Sometimes simple is better, But than again that might just be me

[BILL]

I strongly agree, B.

BILL,

I have always found that perception is in many cases as you have stated somewhat succinctly, reality to those who choose it. And that in general any thing viewed, heard, related often enough to an audience tends to gain a more legitimate appearance despite its true validity or absolute BSedness( Yes I made that up More fun than reading a thesaurus).

This being the case however does ground truth, or real reality ever change.
No

Any efforts at approaching propaganda, training or otherwise should be focused on the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth because there and there alone is the ultimate proactive cure to their ilk found. Being reactive in a reverse psychology kind of way is effective(within its required realm) which in war should be within direct interaction with or against an enemy.

Truth is a very powerful weapon, and I think it is one of the most powerful anti-propaganda methods deployed.B.

If we allow ourselves to fall into the pattern of "besting" them at their own game then in the end you lose because you are now playing their game.

I agree.B.

Part of what has always separated America from other parts of the world is that we push the limits of allowing freedom to where you almost lose them but we always catch ourselves at some point and manage to bring it back to a working democracy. When and if you begin to play by their ( the bad guys) rules than that is lost and you may not come back.

It doesn't take a messenger proclaiming the dangers of a crack house in the neighborhood for folks to know its there and figure they want something done about it. It just takes an 800 number for them to call to get something done about it.

Sometimes simple is better, But than again that might just be me

[Rex Brynen]

It is a data base of terror related info including terrorist web sites, code, graphs, forums, yahoo groups etc.
We believe it is the largest list of terrorist related sites on the Internet.
Page 1
Page 2

Much of the "database", however, seems to be a series of unattributed cut-and-pastes from a 2004 series of MEMRI reports on Islamist websites. The original material is found here:

Islamist Websites and Their Hosts Part I: Islamist Terror Organizations

Islamist Websites and their Hosts, Part II: Clerics

Much of the rest also seems to be (attributed) cut-and-pastes from various other think-tanks, etc. I don't see any database functions at all, or even any internal organization.

Am I missing something?

[BILL]

All of it should be attributed.
and we have been collecting since 2004,

In one location.

Bill

[Tom OC]

One of the issues that has been overlooked on this thread is lawfare, not so much in the asymmetrical sense of using international law for moral advantage, but in the OPLAW sense of how much and how many lawyers are now a part of military operations and decision making. As a criminal justice professor, I have had my eye on this phenomena for awhile and feel skeptical about it, wondering if an increase in thinking like a lawyer will have any beneficial effects. I don't know if all making all things lawyerly would make for good IO. The media, too, are important. Chris Harmon writes in his 2e of Terrorism Today that domestic terrorism is more newspaper-dependent and talks about some interesting issues involving the right to free press. I think the free press issue is the thing to look at, if indeed a fully free press proscribes or prescribes cyber-warrior activity and/or indeed if it even helps to consolidate democracy. Without a theory of free press, all one seems to have are playgrounds for pundits.

[JeffC]

One of the issues that has been overlooked on this thread is lawfare, not so much in the asymmetrical sense of using international law for moral advantage, but in the OPLAW sense of how much and how many lawyers are now a part of military operations and decision making. As a criminal justice professor, I have had my eye on this phenomena for awhile and feel skeptical about it, wondering if an increase in thinking like a lawyer will have any beneficial effects.

I guess you could add me to the skeptical column, Tom. I would, however, support a program that involved exporting lawyers to third world nations, considering that the U.S. has a hefty surplus of them.