Talk:OpIsrael

OpIsrael.com has nothing to do with #OpIsrael
Heather Marsh is involved with Anonymous; [she] wrote some posts on her Twitter account [denying] that said website had anything to do with #OpIsrael. In fact, the Twitter account associated with the operation [did the same], noticing that it is [] that "has always been" their official domain. OpIsrael.com was registered in April 1, 2013, almost a month after the operation had been announced. It is in fact very likely that it was created by Israelis themselves so, during the operation, they could claim to be fighting back. If we're going to include on the entry pro-Israel outlets bragging of the "counter-hacking", we need to include counter-claims, too. 177.40.186.170 (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're incorrect, the domain did in fact belong to OpIsrael, after it was hacked, they moved to opisrael.tk(Which did in fact house the material you see if you go to operationisrael.tk, as did opisrael.com until it was hacked) and finally to operationisrael.tk. This attempt to disassociate themselves from the domain further proves their insulting attempts to spread propaganda and unfound claims. I'll elaborate on that; in previous operations, when "Anonymous" made a claim they added evidence to support it(ie, We hacked 1,000 pedophiles, dump: pastebin.com/xxx) however in this case they keep making unfounded claims and show no evidence to support it(We hacked 100,000 websites and deleted 3,000, but we'll give you a dump which shows only about 500-1000: pastebin.com/xx, we hacked 1,300 :bank accounts, but we won't let you see them and so forth). This entire campaign is made to mask the failure which is OpIsrael by doing what Hamas(aka the puppeteer) does best, spread misinformation and boast false achievements. Following the resolution of this operation I will personally pursue each claim they made to verify or disprove it and reflect my results in this page. IdanElh (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I adduced several links where people of relevance, including those behind OpIsrael, deny that the website belongs to them, noticing that OpIsrael.com was brought to existence very recently -- weeks after the operation was announced. Other posts notice that, as a matter of policy, Anonymous does NOT buy websites.
 * OpIsrael.com was registered [4 April 2013] -- not on 1 April, as I had first said, which makes the OpIsrael.com story even fishier. In effect, though the pro-Israel media says that the "hacking" was in retaliation to #OpIsrael, the website was last updated on 4 April 2013 -- that is, the "hacking" preceded #OpIsrael's onslaught by two days and happened on the same day it was created. Weird, huh? By contrast, [operationisrael.tk] has been active since 2012. It's therefore easy to conclude that it is untrue that OpIsrael only moved to the latter website to mask any failure. Operationisrael.tk is much older than opisrael.com. 177.40.226.238 (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * operationisrael.tk(in its current form) did not exist until a few days ago, and succeeded another attempt made by the OpIsrael hackers at opisrael.tk. In regards to the all "Anonymous doesn't buy websites" claim, I'd like to rebut that by anonops.com, and also to mention that this op is not Anonymous per se as many in the 4chan community confirmed. Let's also not forget that this is not the first operation the dubbed OpIsrael, and that in November of last year an Op with the same name was initiated by Anonymous. But that's all besides the point, the "Whois History" section doesn't necessarily point to the domain's creation date, as testament to that; the opisrael.com page goes back to mid-March despite the fact it was only registered in April 4th, which renders this data unfit for the purpose you're using it for. In addition, anyone can wave the Anonymous flag regardless of their affiliation and it'll still be 'Anonymous'(Indeed, this seems to be the case here with Arab and otherwise Muslim hackers spearheading this Op), therefore the modus operandi changes every time due to a different set of leaders and participants. I'd further like to add that I have personally seen the content you now see at operationisrael.tk at opisrael.com and opisrael.tk prior to the hacking and I have been on their IRC as it happened and witnessed their dismay as they lost their website. In addition, around the time it was hacked there were over 500 people in the chat application that the Israeli hacker placed, and this was before news of the hack received coverage which further proves the fact it was used for coordination prior to being hacked.
 * EDIT: The site's launch was announced back in March 16th: http://www.cyberwarzone.com/opisrael-hackers-launch-opisraelcom-website IdanElh (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I put the POV template on the section, until we can't figure out a proper way to word the opisrael.com issue. Whomever says that opisrael.com belongs to anonymous needs to place proper proof on the article.  If anyone thinks the march 16 anouncement is proof enough then they clearly have no understanding of the Internet's intricates.  And the so-called "anonymous entity"
 * Basic point are 1) Pro-israeli websites claim to have hacked opisrael.com (which still runs israeli content to date) 2) An anonymous claim that opisrael.com was not part of the anti-israel attack.


 * The fact that the site opisrael.com is STILL showing pro-israeli content makes it even more suspicuous that this was simply a hack. Get a cached version of the site from march 16 and show the content maybe that might be proof enough. Otherwise,  we can't just say that opisrael.com was compromised.   Seektrue (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, the Cyber War Zone article along with Anonymous Indonesia's March 17 twitter post regarding OpIsrael.com is proof enough that the site did exist before April 4, and that it was widely acknowledged as the official website following its original inception in March 16. Add the old DNS records to that and the case for OpIsrael.com becomes irrefutable. You do not need to show a cached version from March 16 to know that Anonymous Indonesia and Cyber warzone could not have predicted a website that according to OpIsrael, did not exist until April 4. The information above is more than enough to safely conclude that the website did belong to the OpIsrael movement without the shadow of a doubt. Whether you choose to believe it or not is your choice, but it does not give you the right to repeatedly question solid evidence simply because you choose to ignore it. On to the second point, I believe the domain was bought using stolen credit cards, which led to its repurchase on April 4 by the Israeli hacker. It is a case of domain hijacking more than hacking. But the point here remains, the site was the official website. I'd further like to add that if you seriously stand behind your claim that a 'March 16 article'(And a twitter post from the official twitter of Anonymous Indonesia the day after) is not enough following a claim by OpIsrael that said site did not exist until April 4, then you're either demented or advocating that which you know to be false.68.232.186.235 (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not "ignoring" the evidence, I'm demonstrating where the fault lines are. A twitter account is not proof enough. I can easily create an account, call it my "official" one and tweet whatever I want.  You also seem to miss the point that anonymous is not an entity or a organization.  And it's not according to "opisrael" as you put it (which again shows you think of opisrael and anonymous as an entity) that site existed before april 4.  It is the whois record that is shown as a creation date as April-04 not anyone elses claim.  And like you said yourself, this is might be a domain hijack and not a hack, which proves my point and you have failed to mention that at all and portrayed this as a hack by pro-israeli hackers against the "official" site as you call it. That is why this is clear a POV issue.  Just state the facts as they are and not according to what you believe.   I'll ignore the demented part.

I need to reiterate some points here, 1) anonymous does not have an official site since it is not an entitym 2) Opisrael.com is not a compromised site. 3) Twitter is not a good of infomration. I'm putting the POV tag back until we can agree on a more objective statement.   Seektrue (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you serious Seektrue? It's not only Twitter. It's Twitter, plus Cyber War Zone, plus DNS records which all point to the fact that the website did belong to them. Unless you can say exactly why you disregard said evidence, instead of just saying "because it's not credible", stop putting the POV tags simply because the evidence(which you refuse to acknowledge and say why it's illegitimate) contradicts what Anonymous has said. Your definition of 'Not objective' in this case is bias. You refuse to admit Anonymous lied(A fact that the evidence proves beyond the shadow of a doubt) and so you choose to use bureaucratic tricks in an attempt to destroy the legitimacy of that portion. The evidence in question is legitimate, and all you need to do is compare the statements made by OpIsrael to the links provided and see the clear contradictions 68.232.186.235 (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, calm down. There is no need to call me demented, then move on to blatant hatred or whatever.  We are carrying a discussion here.  Second,, you are missing the main point, which I will say again: Anonymous is NOT AN ENTITY.  Saying, "Anonymous lied" by itself reflects a fallacy.  Now back to the so-called "evidence"  you said yourself that the domain was hijacked why don't you just plainly say that in the article instead of saying it was quickly "taken over". How hard is that?  As for the your statement that it is the "official website", I discredited twitter above so I'm not going repeat what I said.  As for Cyber war zone, again the fault lines appear.  Where did it get the info from?  Am I to trust it as a source just like JPost?   Why do we not do the following: mention that a website claimed to be by anonymous as mentioned in twitter or cyber war or wherever has its domain taken over by pro-israeli activits and then mention that other anonymous claim that the website never belonged to them then put the whois details of old and new. One last thing, please carry out the discussion in one place Seektrue (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're going to discredit everything I bring on the table, saying for example that twitter is not a crebile source is deceiving in this case, since both Cyber War Zone and Anonymous Indonesia tweeted about this, and OpIsrael has explicitly said that 'the OpIsrael.com website didn't exist before April 4'(Tweeted about it several times, and made an anonpaste about the subject) Regardless of what you consider Twitter to be, it is accurate when it comes to post dates. And both the tweets made by Cyberwarzone and Anonymous Indonesia(And some others, just run a search for OpIsrael.com on twitter and you'll see all those around the March 16 area) predate that time. This is a clear lie which you can't refute by saying Twitter is not a credible source simply because we're only dealing in timestamps here. Second, their only evidence thus far is the DNS records they keep boasting. Those have been disproven thanks to the older records cited in the main page. Let's be frank here, if I gave you a JPost article(And by the way, they reported the hacking as well) you'd disregard it and demand a cache. And if I gave you a cached snapshot, you'd come up with something else. Clearly you know nothing of DNS which is why you take this evidence so lightly. The only way these details can be forged(ie, inserting records which were not actually there) is by hacking a root server. In addition, you discredited Cyber war zone for no other reason than a "what if" the isn't credible. Which again, we're hardly dealing with the content of the article, only the fact it was posted on March 16, and that OpIsrael.com is mentioned as the official website of the moment. Whether you personally choose to view it as credible or not credible is irrelevant, since you bring nothing new to the table beyond that one baseless statement.(ie, why it's not credible, instead of just saying 'well maybe it is and going on that). What I said about the website being hijacked originated from rumors on both sides and connecting the various dots to come to that conclusion. Lastly, you said Anonymous is not an entity and therefore does not buy domains. Let me remind you that anonymous is a leaderless movement, ie, anyone can say they're anonymous and like IdanElh mentioned about, there have been incidents where Anonymous has bought domains(anonops.com). In conclusion, the website was originally purchased on March 16 as evident by the DNS records, it was then revoked for an unknown reason, re-purchased, at this point OpIsrael disassociated itself from the website and pointed to the new DNS records from April 4 as proof, and claimed that the website did not exist on the internet prior to that. Despite all that, there are numerous tweets and an article predating April 4 which states the website did exist. Now I'll say again, unless you're implying Anonymous Indonesia,Cyber War zone and other sources have psychic powers which allowed them to predict the so-called false registration of opisrael.com a month later, this is a nobrainer, and your only case is based on evidence which has already been refuted 68.232.186.235 (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me point out the fallacies with all the arguments you bring above.  First of all I did not say "Anonymous is not an entity and therefore does not buy domains".  I am the one who said anonymous is a leaderless movement, not you. That was my main point.  Anyone can do anything in its name. Among them purchasing a name a domain under the Al qaeda. So, concluding that purchasing a domain under such a name indicates that it is anonymous is just baseless.  You go back to the main point "Anonymous Indonesia tweeted about this", what is Anonymous Indonesia?  Did they purchase the domain ? I can easily create a twitter account and call is anonymous narnia, that does not make whatever I tweet as evidence.  I know JPost reported the hacking, that's why I brought them up.  But the fact is, their claim can be easily shown to be as biased since they rely on the same "Evidence" that you bring up here.  I would not come up with something else if you bring up a cached version or if you do not. I am just suggesting ways in which you can make this opisrael.com as worthy of noting. So, far it is not worthy at all besides the fact that a pro-israeli group bought the domain.   One thing I wanted to say for your infomration about DNS since you keep bringing it up and claiming I know nothing about it.  It is not a DNS record. DNS records show what domain point to what IP. This is registrar information showing details about domain ownership and name servers. Here is a DNS record:

ANSWER SECTION: opisrael.com. 100	IN	A	64.202.189.170 opisrael.com. 100	IN	A	216.239.32.21 opisrael.com. 100	IN	A	216.239.34.21 opisrael.com. 100	IN	A	216.239.36.21 opisrael.com. 100	IN	A	216.239.38.21
 * More than anything they just show a domain transfer,which you confirm "it was then revoked for an unknown reason, re-purchased" you say it here, yet, you refuse to include it in the article itself.
 * You are not on wikipedia to connect the dots or draw conclusions: you have to just state the fact objectively and let the reader decide. Personally I think this whole opisrael ting is a nuisance, but I can't just mention it in the article that way since it will demonstrate a POV.   That was what I was trying to tell you all along.  That is why I am suggesting the following:

1) Mention the details of the account, what the old whois information says and what the new one says 2) Mention that it was tweeted by anonymous indonesia 3) mention that it was denied by another source 4) mention that it the domain was purshased on april 04.

You see I have discredited nothing you said, just stated in another way that appears objective. Seektrue (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing here changes the fact that it is documented to have been used by OpIsrael attackers and then By Israel hackrers. Thus I'm removing the messagebox Dafuki (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)