Why does it take Anonymous and not the Pentagon to take down ISIS web pages and Twitter Accounts?

[Quixote1818]

We spend trillions on National Defense and yet it takes a group of rag tag computer nerds to dismantle these things on pocket change?

Can someone explain to me what I am missing?

[Xipe Totec]

1. Perhaps taking down the page is not the optimal strategy? nt

[Quixote1818]

6. That crossed my mind but woulden't the Gov. be telling Anonymous to cut it out then? nt

[Electric Monk]

15. They are, which re-inforces my suspicions that at least some are honeypots.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027360109
http://www.businessinsider.com/will-anonymous-war-on-isis-work-ineffectual-2015-11

[FLPanhandle]

2. Expertise.

It is a specialized skill and government workers are not really viewed as the "cream of the crop" in IT.

[Xipe Totec]

25. It's truly sad to hear opinions like these.

Some of the most dedicated bright people devote their lives to government service.

And they are not motivated by money, greed or fame.

They remain unsung heroes because that's the best way to serve.

The Manhattan project was a government project. Remember that.

[GummyBearz]

31. Uhg

Couldn't disagree more. This is like a post praising the MIC. I worked for it as an engineer for years, and yes there are some brilliant people there. But unsung heroes is a horrible way to describe them.

[Rex]

3. Yes I can elaborate some on that

Our military is burdened by a parasitic class of people (that own the MIC) that sell weapons/equipment for profit at prices 1000% the actual cost. That was back in the 80s. Today we don't actually spend money on defense...we spend money to make military contractors richer than kings.

[notadmblnd]

4. Because US government agencies don't want them down

[Binkie The Clown]

5. If it isn't made of titanium and steel, and doesn't involve high explosives,

then the Pentagon doesn't understand the question. It's about sending money to defense contractors, not about getting results.

[Recursion]

7. Because the government wants them to stay up so they can see what is being said

When you hear talk of "chatter", those sites are usually where a lot of that comes from.

[Quixote1818]

8. That was my first thought as well so I was wondering why Homeland Security didn't tell Anynomous

to cut it out publically. But what about taking down there recruiting videos? Once they have seen them then they have what they need so why not block them at that point?

[Cosmic Kitten]

11. It's more likely a nasty nest of vipers...

both our and theirs.
black and gray misinformation
flowing both ways,
skullfucks for everyone.

If any thread gets pulled
too far it's probably going to
expose some inconvenient truths.

Best to maintain plausible deniability.

[Cosmic Kitten]

9. All that *chatter*, and they still can't stop attacks

[Quixote1818]

10. I would think "chatter" would be phone calls and private email not twitter

saying what you are going to do on twitter where the world can see it would not make good strategic sense.

[Cosmic Kitten]

13. It's all aggregated data

Best covers are MMORPG environments

[Recursion]

19. Well, all kinds of people post stuff they shouldn't online, but yes phone calls are a lot of it

However, they don't actually listen to phone calls for the most part; they're keeping track of who calls whom, along with who is writing physical letters to whom in the US (though I doubt this is much of an active vector anymore), and who is emailing whom.

That said, people (both terrorists and "normal" criminals) post stupid stuff they'd be better off not posting all the time.

[Democat]

28. Or maybe they do stop attacks?

The fact that they don't stop all attacks doesn't meant they don't stop any attacks.

[stevil]

12. They want them open

So they can monitor them closely.

[olddots]

14. Annonymous isn't in it for the money

remember the Department of Defence was once called The War Department .

[irisblue]

16. Anonmyous can tell any who care to listen, the Pentagon isn't going to

recall stuxnet?

[flamingdem]

17. BS from Anonymous

they are clueless about strategy they just operate out of anger. If they do good it was by chance. What they lack are relationships that allow them to have information, they think they have all they need.

[Travis_0004]

18. What grounds does the government have to take them down?

The websites may be pro isis, but I doubt they are actively planning attacks on facebook and twitter, so they have a 1st amendment right. I dobt think the government should shut them down.

I have no problem going after facebooks pr demartment to get facebook to shut it down.

[Waldorf]

20. I would imagine two reasons. One is the Pentagon wants them up to collect information. The other

maybe requires a judge for approval.

Anonymous can do it much easier, because well, they are anonymous.

[randome]

21. Has Anonymous done anything about this or are they pre-emptively 'bragging' about themselves?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Heeeeers Johnny]

22. 'They are ISIS!

Anon is like the buzzing of flies to them!

[img][/img]

Taking the sites down was a meaningless and impotent gesture.
It's not like they cut off their phone and Internet service and crippled their ability to communicate.

[Initech]

23. I still am wondering why we're not going after ISIS' nest egg.

They're very well funded terrorists who need to lose everything.

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. You're probably missing the fact that those are a valuable source of intelligence?

If they're communicating in the open then it becomes somewhat easier to get useful intel on potential attacks and so on from the things they're saying. (Or to target a drone strike against a particular ISIS leader if they happen to know he's in such-and-such a location because he was fool enough to post it on Twitter or Instagram or something.)

[MattSh]

26. The Pentagon will start doing it after...

they develop a strategy to charge $42 billion for it. For each site taken down.

[2pooped2pop]

27. there's money to be made by the rich in any war.

profits trump lives.

[Scuba]

29. Why take them down if perpetual war is your goal?

[Vinca]

30. I'm wondering why, if the U.S. government created the "dark" web and ISIS communicates

via the "dark" web, we don't destroy what we created. Apparently there is one segment of the government that makes sure it's operating and another monitoring it for criminals. It makes no sense.

[951-Riverside]

32. Because its all bullshit

Its all done to give the appearance to the very gullible that someone out there is doing something while actually not doing a thing.

I hate to break it to you but taking down twitter accounts means nothing since they can easily create new ones, I guess the better question is why does twitter allow accounts from known terrorists on their platform.

[Blue_Tires]

33. You know Anonymous are just some publicity-whoring frauds, right?

And real hackers didn't wait until Paris to start battling extremists online??

http://jesterscourt.cc/2015/11/17/public-service-announcement-media-folks-anonymous-are-suckering-you/

[NCTraveler]

34. I'm guessing it's because they get a lot of intel from these web pages.

Other than that I don't have a very good answer and do think it is a great question.

If we can take out multiple Iranian centrifuges with a virus, as we truly did, I would think taking these sites down would be a walk in the park.