(...) According to the investigation performed by the cyber investigations unit of the Northeast Intelligence Network, English speaking Muslim college students in western countries, especially inside North America, have signed on to hack and deface open source news sites first. Concurrent with that endeavor, the hackers will attempt to strike government sites and online sites of importance to our infrastructure, from utilities to banks. As many of these hackers are in the United States and Canada, many who attend our universities and are adept at hacking skills, this most recent virtual jihad could well cause interruptions; system administrators should be vigilant in the upcoming days and weeks to potential vulnerabilities.
Hey, if you feel inclined to dismiss this, imagine how you'd have felt on 9/11 after, on 9/10, having been provided with warning information of intent by malevolents to attack us... and dismissed it as "conspiracy theory"?
Hmm... I just had a thought... been bouncing around inside my head awhile now... the words, "conspiracy theory"... why are they used so much as a weapon of ridicule, no matter how credible and evidence-based a "theory" might be? You know, this "conspiracy theory", as the Left would derisively call it, is actually far more credible than "anthropogenic global warming" and "impending catastrophic climate change". Why? Because we understand how it can happen, know who would do it and know that they fully plan to do it. This is a clear and present danger which we cannot ignore. So to dismiss it as a mere "conspiracy theory" is proof positive that those who would dismiss it are utterly without any argument against the warning's legitimacy. It's the same as when the Left calls those opposed to illegal immigration "racist"... the Left cannot make its case for breaking the law, for opening American borders without restriction to any who wish to enter for any purpose, so they pull out the "racist" knife and thrust it forward. Same thing as hurling the closed-minded, knee-jerk dismissive label "conspiracy theory" onto anything they don't want to believe might be possible, regardless of evidence and reason.
"Conspiracy theory" is therefore a meaningless label used as a rhetorical weapon by the losing side in any issue/argument.
We know that it's possible for terrorists and other malevolents to commit a cyberattack. After all, it's a given that the way wars are waged necessarily changes technology, strategy and tactics... that each subsequent war is always different and more sophisticated than the previous, given the same or substantially the same player(s). The ignorant person expects the next war to be like the last, failing to realise that the players involved know that they need to adapt and change so as to keep the enemy guessing, to have the element of surprise, to make it difficult to launch an effective, prompt defence, etc. So we must expect the unexpected (but, actually, a cyberattack is expected! In fact, Communist China has already successfully hacked even the Pentagon's computer network and may very well have advised the Islamic terrorists as to how to carry out their own!)
I've been reading stuff online in recent days about how terrorists are planning to use the internet to attack our information systems grid, in addition or alternative to the possible and feared use of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) bomb to fry our power and information grid, rendering us back into the 19th century in so many ways, thus virtually defenceless (much of our military technology is now computer/information based, and to have it rendered useless by frying its circuits via an EMP blast would therefore have us at a horrific disadvantage with respect to national defence) against an unaffected enemy... and I personally suspect that it's not just Islamic terrorists who would be involved... it sounds as if (most likely) some Communist regime or regimes working together in an axis group would be using the Islamists as foot soldiers not only as they're useful and expendable, but also so that the Communists could claim plausible deniability should the attack(s) fail. It could be another proxy war, or proxy war attempt, with success degree determining whether the larger, more powerful and advanced enemy might choose to launch an attack against us.