Sounds like it would make a good plot for a new Grand Theft Auto release....
Younis Tsouli - irhabi007 - was earlier this month jailed for ten years. It's a good sentence for the cyber-jihad twit, someone who became fodder for television news shows like 60 Minutes. Wishing to show how al Qaeda was beating the pants off the good guys on the Internet, Tsouli was the perfect example for them, one of …
All of these so called plots are so incoherent and funny that they have to be coming from a simple script which randomly tacks together American military targets (and topless dancing venues), household chemicals and improbable methods of transport with references to Allah's will, virgins and denunciations of foreign running dogs.
Mind you, our counter-terrorism strategy seems to be developed using the same method.
Stupidity and ignorance decrease effectiveness, it is true. But I still prefer to have mean, ignorant drunks put away where they cannot get at me. Too many have been killed or damaged by such for me to think them harmless. Angry jihadis are no better, even if they don't know the details of either their bomb or their target.
""Petrol tanks" will be blown up with rocket-propelled grenades and the thought of it - "excuse me, tears are pouring from my eyes," writes the plotter"
yep, I have tears from laughing too.
I'm happy these guys are being charged, but they are more hate mongers than fear mongers.
What saddens me is that no doubt various Governments will use the opportunity to restrict even more of our liberties by pointing at this and ordering us to fear it. Now that is something to worry about.
Having read the document referred to (beware It's a word doc) I can't help but think it sounds like a new type of 419. I know it's not, but just add a few extra lines about how you need to cash, oh and some bribes for various reasons, can you send by wire transfer and let us have your bank details and by the way you won the lottery. If you want to see the pigs burn send cash now. (That's an invite to a BBQ, if you happen to be a security bod reading. :)
I don not think they are not going to moan to the Police when they find out they have been done are they?
There is a funny part in the doc, quote: "The first target which would be penetrated by 9 brothers is one we know back to front" I bet you do, been doing a bit of recon on the nude ladies too I bet.
I could have loads of fun taking the piss out of that doc. Pity I can not leave it on my HD for fear of the security services finding it and me being shown to the world as some pork hating jihadi despite all the evidence to the contrary.
.....An then I'm gonna fire my rocket
an theres gonna be like a big bang
and they're gonna be like woah
and i'm gonna be all yeah
and then i'm gonna speed off in my car
but the bridge is going to be going up
so i'm gonna like jump the bridge
and you'll have like stolen a jet
and you'll be like going WHOOOSH straight under me while i'm in the air
and then i'm gonna land
it'll be ACE!!!
to all the six year olds out there - Allahu Akbar!! and keep dreaming my friends ;0)
This is all part of a well thought out strategy to threaten us on our home soil, forcing us to leave Iraq and hand it over to these perpetrators of hatred allowing the establishment of the AXIZ OF EVIL (using their BFG and magical math and geometry of the east of course ).
well, looks like it's MUCH easier and safer to "fight them over here" than it is to "fight them over there".
over there, they know how to make IEDs, recruit and train martyrs, and carry out coordinated, effective attacks.
over here, they need a flashlight and a map to find their gluteus maximus in broad daylight (and he calls himself a doctor...).
there is, however, some risk of a hernia from laughing too hard.
i'll take that risk.
The current edition of The Economist touches on this in a special piece in this week's edition. Either The Economist is seriously confused or the author of the above is. Having read The Economist for a few decades I know where to put my money - not on sensationalist drivel.
It appears that Irhab007 is a bit more talented than the quoted buffoonery suggests (and it omits mention of the 12 escort vessels that were going down (or up) with the JFK).
Oh come on, "sensationalist drivel"? EL Reg linked to the original text, so you can judge for yourself. Having read the on-line article on the Economist I think you can easily see who is sensationalist. The Economist is preaching how bad this Internet thingy is and how its turning Muslims into terrorist. Well I don't buy it (in more ways than one), the fact is that if someone is looking to become a terrorist they look for these sites. They are not going to turn anyone, in their right mind, who just happens to come across it into one. You have to treat everything you read as an opinion even if it is the Economist. Why are they aiming the article at that angle, Think about that.
IMO the comments (with the exception of yours) have been spot-on in terms of attitude to this story. I don't normally comment on other peoples comments but I couldn't leave yours there without some examination of your poke at the author.
By the way, the 12 escort vessels was mention in both reports.
As for Irhab007 being talented, he is a good comedian.
Personally when it comes to assessing hackers abilities I'll pick a site which specialises in IT security over the economist any day
Just because you are an economist does not mean you automatically know everything about everything, and the ability to hack into a few websites and dump files there definitely falls far short of uber-hacker in my book. Bearing that in mind I start to get suspicious of anything they then go on to say about other areas economists are traditionally hot on, you know: counter-terrorism, weapons and tactics and in this case since they were going to attack more targets than they had allowed bombs for – counting
Still it probably sells more issues to have exiting news rather than “misguided script kiddie gets put away for inciting terrorism (badly)”
I get very annoid when people talk about The Internet likes it's some sort of big black cloud with magical properties that are incomprehensible by mear mortals. Yes there are barriers to entry, but there is certainly no magic behind anything that happens on the net. Hackers are not wizards - they are simple mortals with knowledge and motivation. Idiots that write stupid mails are still just idiots. Just because it's on a computer monitor doesn't mean anything.
Having been in IT for many years, I have known many " hackers ", whatever their perceived or chosen (if they could be bothered) colour of hat might be : white/black/grey/lilac/tan/tin foil/etc. Hacking is a purly egotistical exploration into the limits of ones talents and ablities, and the inneptitudes of others.
Like all activities it is very difficult to learn anything new if you consider the consequences all the time. Most attacks are opportunistic rather than determanistic (they have no underlying agenda -e.g. terror or commercial gain).
A hackers has a certain "tool set" that he has the ablity to utilise when he discovers a weakness. You can't hack something that is not hackable (or that you don't know how to hack), either way he is going waste alot of time trying to find an exploit that may not exist if he only attacks specific targets.
Big secret folks : the fun stuff to hack is NOT on The Internet - utilities/ telephone companies / banks etc pay MONEY to hire " consultants ( shhh .. don't tell the other hackers that there is money to be made legally here) to secure their sensitive IT operations.
Bottomline: I would rather the terrorists waste their time online sharing silly mails like those in the article - rather than actually going to the Sunoco to get 40 cylinders of Blue Rhino regardless of how smart his engineer brother is or how many he is going to get into his Chevy Silverado plus trailer - wrapped in det cord and christmas lights.
A couple of points, first the Economist is not written by economists, it actually employs the best serious journos in UK (and from elsewhere). Of course it assumes a reading age above 10.
There's nothing to indicate that Younis Tsouli (Irhad007) was the author of the email about blowing up the JFK etc. The Economist indicates it was merely found on his computer, the only clue to the writer being the claim of having served in the Jordanian Army. They also say the FBI had investigated the 'plot' and found it not credible. A point that seems missing from the above article.
What they do credit Tsouli with is a lot more serious, although I had to laugh at his using the Arkansas Highway & Transportation Dept's web site to distribute large files of jihadi videos (suicide bombs are of course 'transports to delight' :-)
The point they make about using the internet is not that it 'recruits' people off the streets, obvious nonsense, but that it provides a near foolproof and counter-measure proof means of preaching and teaching to the near and actually converted. No doubt the energetics section of the jihadist online 'Encylopedia of Preparation' will be updated to stress the need for a proper mix of both fuel and oxidiser in explosive mixes, after so much helpful advice in the media dealing with recent events.
The Economist actually says "the Internet gives jihadists an ideal vehicle for propganda,, providing access to large audiences free of govt censorship or media filters, while carefully preserving their anonimity. Its ability to connect disparate jihadi groups creates a sense of a global Islamic movement fighting to defend the global ummah, or community, from a common enemy." Seems a very fair assessment to me.
Tsoulis' role seems to have been significant in developing this online capability. The Economist states he was "a tireless webmaster for several extremist websites, especially those issuing the statements of the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi'. Attempts to present him as a misguided buffoon who has no idea about ships doesn't do anybody any favours, particularly the author.
You wrote all that and still the previous arguments stand.
Yes the Internet would provide access to a large audience, but the large audience has to know about the site first (there's a pun in there somewhere about large and this story being related to the US), so that line is sensationalism.
I think most of the posters here will agree, we didn't need the FBI to tell us it was not credible, most of us sussed that out after we had wiped the tears of laughter from our eyes.
And yes he is still a buffoon, he's a misguided IT geek who just happens to be a Muslim that supports Jihad, if he wasn't a Muslim he'd probably be the IT geek you tolerate for a short period of time whilst trying to get a clear answer from, but can't wait to get rid of as soon as you have said answer.
It's not rocket science to work out that you'll need a shed load more ordnance and to at least hit every ship below the waterline and if your lucky between 2 bulkheads to get close to a risk of sinking them, so a carrier and 12 other support ships is laughable.
Unfortunately people like you only help the terrorists by trying to give this sort of thing some sort of legitimacy.. shame on you.