"One by One, ISIS Social Media Experts Are Killed..." Topic

… as Result of F.B.I. Program.

"In the summer of 2015, armed American drones over eastern Syria stalked Junaid Hussain, an influential hacker and recruiter for the Islamic State.

For weeks, Mr. Hussain was careful to keep his young stepson by his side, and the drones held their fire. But late one night, Mr. Hussain left an internet cafe alone, and minutes later a Hellfire missile killed him as he walked between two buildings in Raqqa, Syria, the Islamic State's de facto capital.

Mr. Hussain, a 21-year-old from Birmingham, England, was a leader of a band of English-speaking computer specialists who had given a far-reaching megaphone to Islamic State propaganda and exhorted online followers to carry out attacks in the West. One by one, American and allied forces have killed the most important of roughly a dozen members of the cell, which the F.B.I. calls "the Legion," as part of a secretive campaign that has largely silenced a powerful voice that led to a surge of counterterrorism activity across the United States in 2015 as young men and women came under the influence of its propaganda…"
Main page
link

This move to think… who would have thought ten years ago that people who were engaged on social media would eventually become targets for drone strikes in the Middle East…!

Amicalement
Armand

Can we use that technology on those guys who love to break into your computers and mess things up ?

"You broke into my computer, I'm going to track you down and get you."
"HAHA LOLZ, i AM h7P3R HAXXORZ !!! U CANOT D3FIT MOI ! HERE IS MY BIG MIDDLE FINGER YOU STOOPID !!! Wait, what are those red dots on the screen ?

*Obscene amount of gunfire followed by a deadly silence.*

who would have thought ten years ago that people who were engaged on social media would eventually become targets for drone strikes in the Middle East…!

It would be naive to think otherwise…

A Hellfire missile to kill one guy?

Killing a tactician, sure. Arms supplier, fine. Dude that trains them how to rig up suicide vests – have at it. But I'm sort of wondering – how would the US react if the UK blew up one of our citizens because they disliked his published opinion pieces? This gentleman, for instance:

link

So the question becomes, when does eliminating legitimate threats become just killing everyone you disagree with? And when killing journalists and opinion columnists becomes legitimate law enforcement activity, what exactly were we fighting against during the cold war?

Yes Bill.

Sadly, we may be winning the conventional war, but certainly American taxpayers are losing the economic one.

Of course, the military and ordnance manufacturers, and their highly compensated executives are "winning" all the way to their banks.

As long as they are members of Daesh or AQ for that matter … good hunting !

Rubber Suit Theatre- You did read the article, did you not? If you did then you'd know this cretin was a major leader in ISIS' cyber and social media effort. By my reading, he more than qualifies as a legitimate target for elimination.

Mako11- You don't get it, do you? This type of action sends a loud and clear message: If you're a major player in ISIS, YOU WILL DIE. Period. Full Stop. No matter the time, effort or cost, YOU WILL DIE. This is a WAR, not some idiotic cost/benefit analysis….

#urtoast.

You may win a few battles, but you can lose the war, if you fight it stupidly, without consideration for the economics and practicality of doing so.

You can also lose if you place too much emphasis on the "economics and practicality". War, by definition, is uneconomic, impractical and irrational. To think you can impose some cost/benefit analysis to the process is naive, at best, and criminal, at worse…

If it prevents a repeat of 9/11, I am all in. Besides, this warfare is bargain-basement priced, compared to the Cold War… Cheers!

Rubber suit by your reasoning joaiph hero else wasn't a war criminal? There is a difference between experts get an option that others disagree with and calling for attacks on civilians. Read the Geneva codes. He was an active member of a force at war and as such a legitament target.

How many American/Western people, pundits, public relations spokespersons, and politicians call for the violent destruction of people and property around the globe? If it's valid to kill mouth-pieces for promoting violence against the West, is it not also valid for Arabs, Persians, Russians, Chinese, Mexicans, etc. to kill those in the West who vocally incite violence against them? Would an Iranian-backed drone strike against Sen. John McCain be valid because of his violent anti-Iranian rhetoric? Could China legitimately assassinate those calling for military confrontation in the South China Sea? Could Russians violently dispose of Westerners who promote the backing of the Ukrainian government by aiding and abetting it with troops for training, material military support and who advocate sending a tripwire force?

If the extra-judicial killing of non-combatants is a valid military tactic then can doctors and nurses who give aid and comfort to the enemy be targeted and killed? What about independent journalists who vocally expose wrong-doing or endanger secrecy by western militaries and thus aid the likes of ISIL? Is it valid to kill the US lawyers who represent those accused of terrorism if they are too efficient and manage to get dangerous terrorism suspects acquitted of heinous crimes on arcane legal technicalities? Could the US military kill American citizens who advocate using violence in defence of their Second Amendment rights or indeed any part of the US Constitution? If Americans like Anwar al Alwaki, Abdulrahman his son, or Samir Khan are legitimate targets aren't other Americans inciting violence against the US state legitimate targets too? Finally, what about those on TMP who regularly call for violence against foreign people, organisations and states? Are such wargames legitimate targets for extra-judicial killing? If the Legion is a valid target abroad then what about Legions closer to home?

The criminalisation and militarisation of thought and speech is a very dangerous idea and blowback against us all is a very real possibility.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Rod- You're so far off base on this one, its not even remotely funny. The character in question was DIRECTING ISIS' social media and cyber effort. RECRUITING people to join ISIS. If that doesn't qualify as a legitimate target, then I don't know who is. ISIS is NOT a government, it does NOT get the respect and consideration of a government. It is a TERRORIST organization. Pure and simple. And its governing members are TERRORISTS. If that isn't simple enough for you, then I can't help you….

Charlie 12:

You are laminating your own definitions upon foreigners who don't see them or your government as valid constructs. The idea that states have the powers and right to kill foreigners is as foreign to them as the notions of clan or tribal reprisals and Pashtunwali are to you. Your statement above is based on the two premises that states are legitimate and that those who oppose them violently but are not part of a state themselves are terrorists. If someone does not accept those two pillars of your argument then it holds no validity from their point of view. Your and other's willingness to forcefully impose western preconceptions and institutions on foreign peoples and their cultures is at the root of this conflict and is as much responsible for these conflicts as their religio-political extremism.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Charlie 12 – the FBI has to sell themselves as heroes. Everyone that they take out, set up with a fake bomb, or simply lie about to make themselves look competent is a "major player".

link

Truth be told, if they had such good surveillance on such a "major leader", knowing where he is and what he's doing is far more valuable than offing him and having to go find his replacement. But that doesn't make headlines, and headlines are what get budget requisitions. Besides, it looks like Mr. "Major Leader" hadn't actually inspired a single successful (or even attempted)operation, or provided actionable intelligence or assets, but had just been an online crank and hatemonger like most US websites with confederate flags.

And warfare is *absolutely* about cost vs. benefit. Professionals study logistics and all that. Children throwing tantrums always lose, because they can't figure out what works, just what feels good.

Sgt Slag – after Iraq (I was there, it was pointless), universal NSA surveillance, and the chief of the FBI attempting to retroactively wiretap every iPhone at Apple's expense, I'm pretty much *done* writing blank checks for vague promises to "prevent another 9/11".

Rod- The moment ISIS stops operating completely outside any sense of civilized norms (even outside the norms recognized by those tribal groups you're so in love with), when they stop killing people wily-nily for whatever specious reason in ever more creative (and brutal) ways, when they stop sending out wild eyed deluded "martyrs" that they've thoroughly brain washed into thinking "suicide is GOOD!", when they stop snatching women to became their private sex toys, when they stop perverting the teachings of one of the great religions, then we'll stop killing them. Until then: GAME ON….

As for your, oh so outraged liberal intellectual mullings: You give liberals (and I happen to be one) a bad name….

And warfare is *absolutely* about cost vs. benefit. Professionals study logistics and all that.

We're not talking about putting together a FRAGO here. We're talking about sending a message. A message that reads "if you're a ISIS leader (even an ineffective one), you're DEAD".

Can't help that you're so disillusioned by your experience. In point of fact, I consider the whole Iraqi "adventure" a total fiasco that we should have never started. But we did and now we have THIS mess to contend with. And crying over past screw-ups won't help that….

Charlie 12:

You might want to read this to put Junaid Hussain's short life and death into some perspective.

link

As for liberalism, perhaps a refresher course is in order. Here is a start if you're interested. You can skip the first minute of the video to get right to the core principles of classical liberalism.

youtu.be/pp3t-Ee1J5k

Rod Robertson.

Rod- Changes nothing. The slug was doing ISIS dirty work by actively conducting cyber warfare on their behalf. And that makes him as much a target as a soldier with an AK-74. Is that too complex for you to understand?

(BTW, I read the article when it came out. Happen to read Vanity Fair on a regular basis. And I don't need simplistic lessons in classical liberalism. Least of all, from YOU).

Charlie 12:

Clearly you have discounted the first principle of classical liberalism for those affiliated with groups you deem illegitimate. These principles were designed to protect those who any society has declared to be intolerable and outside the protection of any law. If you pick up a weapon you are a legitimate military target but if you pick up a pen or keyboard you are not. The conflation of speech and combat is very anti-liberal thinking. You can be prosecuted for what you espouse during peace and war but only by due process under the rule of law guided and informed by the principles of justice.

Rod Robertson.

Are you honestly conflating cyber warfare on the behalf of ISIS with protected speech? Really? THAT is the most absurd thing yet…. And a gross perversion of the concept of Free Speech.

Charlie 12:

No, I am not conflating it with protected speech. Such speech as Hussain's may very well be illegal and thus subject to prosecution and punishment. However it is not armed combat and therefore cannot be treated as such using disproportional force without due process. It is you and many others who are conflating crime and/or dissent with armed combat.

Rod Robertson.

You are aware that every nation's military maintains a cyber warfare unit? And that those units are every bit a military unit as an infantry battalion? And whose missions places them at the same risk? ISIS was actively pursuing such ops at the direction of this slug (I refuse to use his name). That makes him subject to a military response. Which he got on Aug 24, 2016. And if you don't think cyber warfare is not/cannot be the same as armed combat, GUESS AGAIN, naive one. Its 2016, not 1916…

Given that this guy has been releasing the names and addresses of US military and government personnel for ISIS and lone-wolf hit lists, I think he's gone way beyond freedom of expression to actively aiding and abetting.

Charlie 12:

Get your facts right. Junaid Hussain was killed on August 25/26th, 2015. He was not a slug but a human being. Definitly not a good human being but neither an invertebrate vermin. Stop dehumanising people to justify their killing or you're a propagandist just as he was.

Militaries also have doctors, nurses, chaplains, journalists, historians, public relations personnel, entertainers, etc. Is it the norm to target them because of their aid and support of combat troops and a war effort? What about the civilians who feed and supply armies or insurgencies? Are they fair-game too? Where do you draw the line if not at the use of lethal weapons?

The US military targeted Al Jazeera reporter pools in hotels in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past. Were those attacks legitimate? And no they were not accidental attacks as was claimed by the attackers. They were repeated attacks no different from attacks made on the Serbian media during the NATO intervention.

The point is that non-violent aid and support are not armed combat and should not be treated as such.

Rod Robertson.

Militaries also have doctors, nurses, chaplains, journalists, historians, public relations personnel, entertainers, etc. Is it the norm to target them because of their aid and support of combat troops and a war effort? What about the civilians who feed and supply armies or insurgencies? Are they fair-game too? Where do you draw the line if not at the use of lethal weapons?

You REALLY don't know much about the military, do you?

The short answer is YES (with the exception of medical personnel who are, IIRC, covered under the Geneva Convention Which, we can assume, ISIS would have NO respect for). Whether you're slopping hash or driving a truck, civilian or military, you're supporting the actions of the military. And that puts you at risk.

The point is that non-violent aid and support are not combat and should not be treated as such.

Are you calling cyber warfare "non-violent aid and support"? Done right, its anything but non-violent. And can be a MAJOR combat multiplier.

I repeat: You REALLY don't know much about the military, do you?

I'm more interested in how his position was consistently and accurately tracked to enable positive ID in a cybercafe in Raqqa. A "big league" hacker should be covering his electronic tracks better…

This type of action sends a loud and clear message: If you're a major player in ISIS, YOU WILL DIE.

Considering the ideology of our opponents, that's a message that will largely fall on deaf ears.

when they stop killing people wily-nily for whatever specious reason in ever more creative (and brutal) ways

Creative ways like parking humming robots in the sky that rain death on combatants and civilians alike? For specious reasons such as "profiling" aka "we don't know if you are a scumbag but you hang out with scumbags so here's some death for you too". link

Whether you're slopping hash or driving a truck, civilian or military, you're supporting the actions of the military. And that puts you at risk.

The point Rod is trying to get at is to highlight the hypocrisy of cheering the violent end of these sort of enemy support personnel and yet decrying our enemy's own asymmetric attempts to violently undermine the US military's support base via targeting its most vulnerable elements: the civilian population. And we are reinforcing precedents that it is ok for state actors to deploy lethal force against such elements. Which everyone is in favor of as long as the US is the world's superpower…..Give it 30 years, when American propagandists might very well be on the receiving end of Chinese drone strikes, and suddenly it won't seem like such a good idea.

It is all a grand, complicated exercise of cost benefit analysis for all involved. The answer to any "should XYZ person be a target?" is always going to be "depends". Does the benefit of removing the target outweigh the intrinsic costs, including bad PR, retaliatory strikes, expansion of the conflict, etc. Accusations of hypocrisy are just another, and very minor, variable to be considered.

Iraq (I was there, it was pointless),

I was not there. But laud your service and comments.

However, IMO at this point, there is nothing that can "fix" the "situation" in much of the moslem world. Until they decide to "fix" it themselves. Which does not look like that is going to happen very soon. If ever …

And from my standpoint, again, until something better/different happens, etc., … If they are Daesh or AQ and/or their supporter. They probably should be targeted.

It seems pretty clear to me, Daesh propaganda is inciting homegrown jihadis in the West. To commit terrorist acts. Killing non-combatants like in France, the US, etc.
So it seem to me these cyber-propagandists are legitimate targets.

He was not a slug but a human being. Definitly not a good human being but neither an invertebrate vermin. Stop dehumanising people to justify their killing …

As I note here and many times in the past. Once they become members or supporters of Daesh, AQ, etc., … they no longer are considered human beings, IMO. Just targets …

There is a difference between experts get an option that others disagree with and calling for attacks on civilians. Read the Geneva codes. He was an active member of a force at war and as such a legitament target.

I agree … and think this is an overriding factor. Hence again … they are targets.

Get your facts right. Junaid Hussain was killed on August 25/26th, 2015. He was not a slug but a human being. Definitly not a good human being but neither an invertebrate vermin. Stop dehumanising people to justify their killing or you're a propagandist just as he was.

So sue me, I'm guilty of a typo. As for being a slug, I apologize to all members of the gastropod mollusc family for slander by associating this "person" with them.

As for dehumanising him: I am well aware that he was a flesh and blood human being who, of his own free will, chose to apply his considerable talents to further ISIS' cause. A cause whose disregard for human life is well documented. And he paid the price for his actions. You want me to weep for the poor little terrorist? Sorry, not happening. I'll leave that to you…

C12 +1

Right on Charlie 12!!

Tom

It's about definitons and rules. Our rules, our definitions. Their definitions, their rules.

Or, we justify our killings according to our definitions and consider it right. Meanwhile, they are wrong. Anyone who disagrees with this is also wrong, probably a terrorist and lower as a life form than something that could walk upright under a slug.

Fact is, they justify their killings following their definitions and consider it right. Meanwhile, we are wrong. Anyone who disagrees with this is also wrong, probably a demonic monster and lower as a life form than something that could walk upright under a slug.

Charlie 12 – you've learned your debate skills from Reddit. Be condescending in substitution for authority, and shout louder and longer than everyone else. You still haven't answered the question – Where's the line? Every time I've been handed a weapon and authorized to use it, there were rules. I'm not seeing any when it comes to drones, other than "not where Americans could see it". Maybe "only third world middle-eastern types", since they haven't bothered with Pablo Escobar and company. But I'm just not sold that carte blanche assassination authority handed to an agency that mostly specializes in macho posturing and disproportionate response (Ruby Ridge was about four sawed off shotguns that it was the government's idea to manufacture) is such a good idea.

Disagreeing with the government does not make me a poor little manipulated veteran, driven mad by powder smoke. It makes me a reasoning human that has seen and observed the agencies in question in action at close range, along with the results of their hubris, and therefore capable of that rarest of things in our modern age – informed opinion. "Crying over past screwups" is what some people might refer to as "learning from our mistakes". It's what gives us better problem solving capability than a bluebottle on a window pane. We've been blowing people up from the sky without fear of retribution for about 10 years now. We're really good at expensively killing foreigners without getting shot. But has it accomplished our goals? I'm not opposed to air strikes, and I don't care if the pilot is in the aircraft or a trailer in Nevada, but we don't seem to put a lot of thought into *why* we're attacking. The thing to remember about small raids is that the enemy recovers from them, and often comes back more capable (there is an opportunity to learn from the experience).

It would be nice if we could fight just one war without creating the next decade's crisis in the course of said prosecution. A bit of humility might help with that.

It's probably time to dismantle the intelligence agencies and put create some replacements with narrower focuses and powers. We should probably also forcibly shut-down the military-industrial complex and criminalize alot of their current political machinations. We're spending all of our hard and soft power in fights that are just destabilizing the region further with no concrete benefit to anyone. Never happen with conservatives in power though, they're more than happy to wreck the country looking for their paydays.

And it really doesn't help matters when some of us are just fine with using the same tactics as the terrorists.

If ISIS had the ability to launch hellfire, cruise missiles or even ICBMs they would have targeted the rest of us just for refusing to adopt their beliefs and customs. We have already seen what they are prepared to do for an offensive cartoon. This individual was actively recruiting for ISIS. He was the equivalent of a staff officer or intel analyst serving in a hostile military a legitimate target.

"in fights that are just destabilizing the region"- Wolfgang

That might be part of the end game…

"Never happen with conservatives in power though, they're more than happy to wreck the country looking for their paydays."- Wolfgang

And liberals will wreck it by running up the credit card handing out freebies…

Charlie 12:

Are you calling cyber warfare "non-violent aid and support"? Done right, its anything but non-violent. And can be a MAJOR combat multiplier.

After a brief search of the interweb, I could not find one example of anyone who has died from a cyber attack let alone one causing mass casualties. Cyber attacks to date have been devoted to espionage, mischief and sabotage but to my knowledge no one has ever been killed by such an attack. Now, if we design systems which are so fragile that they can be caused to fail so badly as to cause fatalities, that's on us. But until someone can demonstrate to me that cyber attacks have killed their targets then they are not a lethal weapon in my mind. Yes, they can cause disruption, cost money and alarm people and governments but so can legal protests or industrial actions/strikes. Should we target drones against protestors and union organisers?

There is no doubt in my mind that cyber attacks could be used to cause casualties but that is because we have become too reliant on computers and digital communications. We have not invested in securing our cyber-infrastructure and have failed to build in fail-safes and redundancies to make certain vital systems robust enough to withstand or quickly recover from such attacks. Likewise our power grids have not been hardened against EMP vulnerability and our cyber networks have not been hardened and compartmentalised in order to withstand and quickly recover from such attacks. Perhaps we should spend more money on increasing our own security rather than wasting money blowing up people half a world away and thus destroying what little security many foreigners have?

Hyperbole and histrionics do not make a persuasive case for any proposition. Perhaps we need to calm down and discuss this rationally rather than throwing invectives and recriminations about willy-nilly?

Rod Robertson.

I'm a bit loathe to believe any of these "kill" reports.

Turkey just arrested Australian terrorist Neil Prakash who had been reported as killed in Syria and Iraq at least 3 times previously.

Either he's part cat and still has another 5 lives or the intelligence community is largely clueless.

A Hellfire missile to kill one guy?

It's the smallest weapon we have cleared for use on drones.

@Dragon Gunner:
"That might be part of the end game…"

Eternal wars is good for business, terrible for the country. Our bust up of Iraq was only a benefit to arms dealers, various terrorist groups, and Iran. And look who was close to the president when the war started…

"And liberals will wreck it by running up the credit card handing out freebies…"

History says otherwise, the biggest welfare states are all red after all. Not only that, who created the national debt? Who sent it soaring with two unfunded wars? Neither of which were officially declared as required by congress by the way, so the conflicts we're discussing are already unconstitutional. So what do a few more extrajudicial murders matter? :)

A greater Shia Sunni war would see the arms trade boom.

And wouldn't serve our interests either. Best case would be resetting the borders the europeans screwed up to something more stable.

I am pleased to see that the gastropod family has been apologized to, for the previous slander.

Anyone aiding and abetting a terrorist organization is a legitimate target, and I will not shed a single tear for ISIS, AQ, Taliban, Hezbo, Hamas, or other terrorist members that suffer a kinetic or explosive fate.

Except maybe ones the West has supported in the past under the guise of Freedom fighters!

Ah, but our heroic freedom fighters don't terrorise!

They FREEDOMISE.

Like the Contras. :p

Anyone aiding and abetting a terrorist organization is a legitimate target, and I will not shed a single tear for ISIS, AQ, Taliban, Hezbo, Hamas, or other terrorist members that suffer a kinetic or explosive fate.

Yep … this is similar to what I said in a post above. "Once they become members or supporters of Daesh, AQ, etc., … they no longer are considered human beings, IMO. Just targets … "

There may be a terrorist incident going on at OSU. About 3 hours from where I live. It has all the signatures of a Daesh inspired attack. But we'll have to wait an see. Seems they are leaning to it being an act of terrorism. Does not bode well for me thinking Daesh deserves any mercy.

Given that this guy has been releasing the names and addresses of US military and government personnel for ISIS and lone-wolf hit lists, I think he's gone way beyond freedom of expression to actively aiding and abetting.

This alone should have put him on the target list. Don't see a problem with him being "removed" from the roster. And sent to Paradise. Or wherever …

You REALLY don't know much about the military, do you?

But … he tries …

Best case would be resetting the borders the europeans screwed up to something more stable.

I've said that a number of times. But I doubt it would happen … save for more bloodshed among the locals.

A greater Shia Sunni war would see the arms trade boom.

Of course … and even if the US or West did not supply them with weapons. Somebody else would. Note all the Russian made weapons and equipment in the region. Has been that way for decades.

Even if we managed to reset the various borders to the tribal areas, I'd bet that we'd see a Sunni-Shia war within 5 years.

Honestly, Islam needs to get it's version of the 30 years war out of it's system.