Attack of the cyber terrorists

bhkad · 05-27-07, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Attack of the cyber terrorists
by MICHAEL HANLON - Last updated at 22:54pm on 24th May 2007

At first it would be no more than a nuisance. No burning skyscrapers, no underground explosions, just a million electronic irritations up and down the land.

Thousands of government web pages suddenly vanish to be replaced with the Internet's version of the Testcard - that dreaded screen '404 - Not Found' or, more amusingly, some pastiche or parody.

Then the Labour website starts to promise a wholesale renationalisation of the railways. The popular response this generates turns to amusement then bemusement as everything from Jaguar to BT is, the sites claim, to be taken back into state hands.

When conservatives.org.uk starts to promise compulsory repatriation and the return of capital punishment, bemusement turns to alarm. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1965

Just one more scenario many of you hadn't thought of when dismissing the potential jihadist threat.

Gardener · 05-27-07, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

Just one more scenario many of you hadn't thought of when dismissing the potential jihadist threat.

IMO, the more insidious threats are those that are less direct and are fought rhetorically. The Muslim Brotherhood, especially, has become much more adept at tailoring their message in such away as to manipulate people into supporting them by fanning out across the internet through blogs,discussion groups and the like. It's all about framing, as these mostly European Jihadists work towards creating the paradigm that any criticism of their anti human, totalitarian ideology is a form of bigotry and that anybody who criticises them is,by definition, a "conservative". For those who are too unintelligent to realize that the Jihadists own political ideology is so archly conservative as to be off the charts, and for those whose only relationship to politics is one of adopting labels, this framing acts to solidify the notion that in order to be "liberal",a person needs to act as an apologist for Islamism.

Notable exceptions like Christopher Hitchens, aside, this strategy seems to be working as more and more self-described "liberals" are now anything but since their little knees are jerking so hard they never stop to ask "what is liberal about supporting totalitarians?

Potential Jihadist threat? You bet there is. The Jihadists are fighting awar on ALL fronts, as these are idealogues first and formost and it is their ability to influence the dialogue that is their chief weapon. Just imagine what would have happened if Goebbels had a tool like the internet?

Cephus · 05-27-07, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gardener

It's all about framing, as these mostly European Jihadists work towards creating the paradigm that any criticism of their anti human, totalitarian ideology is a form of bigotry and that anybody who criticises them is,by definition, a "conservative".

Oh yes, because that kind of nonsense isn't used by just about EVERY group, from blacks to Christians to the Republican party. Remember, anyone who criticizes Bush is anti-American.

Gardener · 05-27-07, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephus

Oh yes, because that kind of nonsense isn't used by just about EVERY group, from blacks to Christians to the Republican party. Remember, anyone who criticizes Bush is anti-American.

so that makes it right?

EAGLE1 · 05-27-07, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gardener

so that makes it right?

No it doesnt make it right. It makes it COMMON.

Gardener · 05-27-07, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EAGLE1

No it doesnt make it right. It makes it COMMON.

You should know more than anybody.

EAGLE1 · 05-27-07, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gardener

You should know more than anybody.

Save the personalisation for the basement where it belongs.

Gardener · 05-27-07, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EAGLE1

Save the personalisation for the basement where it belongs.

You indulge in this same framing constantly. You continually support Iran, support their nuclear ambitions even as they openly discuss their genocidal ambitions, you call America a "rogue state" for not supporting Iran, you justify terrorism at every turn, and you call anybody who does not kowtow to Islamist terrorists "right wingers".

You should know since you indulge in the same rhetoric as Islamist terrorists. If you do not wish this to be pointed out, perhaps you not sound so much like a terrorist supporter as you do.

EAGLE1 · 05-27-07, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gardener

You indulge in this same framing constantly. You continually support Iran, support their nuclear ambitions even as they openly discuss their genocidal ambitions, you call America a "rogue state" for not supporting Iran, you justify terrorism at every turn, and you call anybody who does not kowtow to Islamist terrorists "right wingers".

You should know since you indulge in the same rhetoric as Islamist terrorists. If you do not wish this to be pointed out, perhaps you not sound so much like a terrorist supporter as you do.

Well since your unlikely to follow this up with examples we can discuss as usual I'll just ignore it.

In anycase, why is my contribution more important than the issue of framing at hand? Why dont you answer the point made about framing? I.e. its certainly not right as you say but it is COMMON!

Cephus · 05-27-07, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EAGLE1

No it doesnt make it right. It makes it COMMON.

He's just trying to damn them for something that pretty much everyone does, while at the same time ignoring that everyone else does it. It wouldn't be hard to find some Islamophobia in that, would it?