Slashdot Mirror


Hosting Provider Shut Down By FBI

An Anonymous Reader writes: "An 80-strong U.S. FBI agents raided the Texas-based host of Arabic Web sites, including that of the Arab world's leading independent news channel, prompting charges on Thursday of an 'anti-Muslim witchhunt.'" The Reuters story is at Yahoo! as well. Did you know there was a North Texas Joint Terrorism Task Force, or that it would be shutting down ISPs?

398 comments

  1. iViews Raided, Too? by suwain_2 · · Score: 0, Troll

    The first link, to iViews, is "refusing" my (normal HTTP) connection... Wonder if maybe they were nabbed, too?

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
  2. CNN probably has stuff too by trance9 · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Imagine if an FBI raid on CNN resulting in the broadcaster going off the air for a few hours, or the website being shut down.

    I think there's some bias here.

    Sure, they probably have a search warrant. Sure, it's probably warranted. But this wouldn't be the first news organization had some information the police wanted or needed, and didn't hand it over. Journalists have these crazy ideas about protecting their sources, and don't always willingly give the police what they want.

    But still, if it were a western mainstream media organization the police would be careful not to disrupt operations.

    I think there must be some bias here.

    1. Re:CNN probably has stuff too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there's some bias here.

      The article didn't say shit about the circumstances of the raid. We don't have enough information to say whether there was bias or not. We simply don't have the facts yet. Your words are useless, dangerous, inflammatory speculation. Stop talking out your ass and wait for the facts to come in.

    2. Re:CNN probably has stuff too by alannon · · Score: 2

      You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that web sites are afforded the same protections under the law that broadcasters are. They're not.

    3. Re:CNN probably has stuff too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure hope you were trolling...

    4. Re:CNN probably has stuff too by FreeMars · · Score: 1

      You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that web sites are afforded the same protections under the law that broadcasters are. They're not.

      They are. CNN is 'broadcasting', not 'the press', and has no special rights.

      --
      Email: slashdot3@FreeMars.org (Address will be abandoned when it gets spam.)
    5. Re:CNN probably has stuff too by Nonesuch · · Score: 2
      You are mistaken. Actually 'the press' has no special rights compared to other forms of media, just some extra political power to make a stink when their normal everyday rights are violated.


      IOW, the American government avoids pissing off the press, not because of any special legal protection, but more because of 'protection' in the cosa nostra sense of the word.

    6. Re:CNN probably has stuff too by djrogers · · Score: 3, Informative

      Obligatory reprimand follows :
      Next time read the article before you post. The news agencies weren't raided, their web hosting provider was. There's no indication of who the target of the warrant is, but it's highly unlikely that it's a foreign news agency... Sheesh...

      --
      Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
    7. Re:CNN probably has stuff too by autocracy · · Score: 2

      And what if CNN was hosted there? Yeah, you see his point now?

      --
      SIG: HUP
    8. Re:CNN probably has stuff too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isnt this America? They don't have any freedoms in the Mid east. I could be killed for posting this over there. But since this is a great country, I just happen to be very well prepared to defend myself. I say when you come here try to become part of this great country. Leave your studid ass customs behind. don't get me wrong, its ok to be proud of your background, but don't cram it down my throat! If you think its so great, Then move back. My point is that 99.9 %
      of the time the FBI don't come knocking at the law abiding citizens door. I am sick of people hiding behind race.

    9. Re:CNN probably has stuff too by grahammm · · Score: 1

      Why not? Surely they are just as much "press" as broadcasters and newspapers. In fact they are probably closer to the "press" which existed at the time the constitution was drafter than the current corporate run media.

    10. Re:CNN probably has stuff too by itachi · · Score: 1

      Well, there is a first ammendment issue. It's not so much not pissing off the press as not doing something that the constitution (theoretically, anyway) prohibits. Trying to squash news could backfire badly - see the Pentagon Papers and the precedent that it set re: prior restraint. Of course, you'd be justified to point out the whole desert storm thing. In this case, since Islam is hardly popular in the US (because we're backwards, willfully underinformed and willfully ignorant), I have my doubts whether enough of a stink will be made. Stink-making being the only thing that really keeps the first ammendment from being trampled daily...

      itachi

  3. They were *NOT* shut down. by torpor · · Score: 3, Troll

    Their operations were simply interrupted while the Fed's conducted their search. The sites came back online, fair and square.

    The search was perfectly legal, and executed per the law.

    For crying out loud, glib sensationalism is the last thing slashdot needs more of ...

    Shame!

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by eAndroid · · Score: 2

      What? Slashdot is ONLY glib sensationalism!

      --

      I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
    2. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by Purificator · · Score: 1

      right. this doesn't sound like censorship, either, --just an asset search. they were probably (and maybe still are) planning to seize machines they think were used for something illegal (like maybe used in a hacking attempt).

      i think someone's overreacting. at least the article didn't mention that they were linux servers, or else the posts would be hysterical with indignation.

      --
      "Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
    3. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many searches are perfectly legal; However, when
      was the last time you saw a jewish site shut
      down for being linked to terrorism.

    4. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by quintessent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In other words:

      This article: Troll=1, misinformation=1, TypicalSlashdot=2

    5. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      You forgot WRONG = 2 and STUPID= 3.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    6. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by Patrick13 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Actually, I think that if you read the Yahoo article carefully, it says
      "...many of the sites were able to start up again on other servers, while the task force continued to copy computerized information on Thursday. The office remained sealed off by FBI agents."


      Starting up on another server is not nearly the same as "coming back online, fair and square".
      --
      ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
    7. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

      He said many of the sites were able to start up again on other servers, while the task force continued to copy computerized information on Thursday. The office remained sealed off by FBI agents.

      It sounds like some sites are still offline. And many had to move to new servers.

      --
      Troll is a troll is a troll.

    8. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by Bargainmeister · · Score: 1

      This doesn't mean they didn't get the shaft. In the pursuit of protecting itself the US government will trample your rights. The modern hunt for Islamic 'terrorists' isn't too different from the 1950's hunt for communists, only now this sort of thing is done more discreetly and doesn't target white people. Don't forget, radical muslims target America because the US government is an imperialist power in the Arab (middle eastern) world.

      I'll be interested to see if this ISP ever gets its hardware back...

    9. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by Xoro · · Score: 1

      For crying out loud, glib sensationalism is the last thing slashdot needs more of ...

      Shame!

      Would you be more upset if it was CNN.com that went down while the FBI conducted their search? What were they doing there? Oh, they didn't say. If the government is going to start messing with the flow of information in this country they'd better have a good reason -- and the public should be able to judge how good the reason is.

      I'd rather live in world where terrorists hid behind freedom of the press than one where the police hid behind fear of terrorism.

      --
      Kill, Tux, kill!
    10. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by Apuleius · · Score: 2

      No, radical Muslims target the US because
      the US is the current HQ of the Jewish-Masonic
      conspiracy that toppled the Ottoman Caliphate
      in 1918.

      I am not kidding. THis is what they believe.
      Ahmad Thomson's "Dajjal the Antichrist" is
      the book that goes into details about this
      conspiracy. Great reading, if you're stoned.

    11. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by Chasuk · · Score: 1

      Since when is coming up again on other servers different from coming back online? Or does the fair and square qualifier impart to you some sinister meaning?

      At the ISP where I work, we have many different servers, each with different comical names. If we are hosting a customer's website on Scooby, and we transfer it to Taz, is there something not fair and square about that action? If so, then we and many other ISP's are operating unfairly every day, as such transferences are fairly common (due hardware failures and upgrades, as two examples).

      I think that you need to read the Yahoo article carefully.

    12. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, you idiot -- another recent college grad who found a couple of more big words. Get a grip -- and a life, you loser.

    13. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on, it's much better to put a nice, X-Files-esque sinister spin on the news. Conspiracies are everywhere! Too bad for the dumbasses who get into that nonsense that very, very, very few of them are real.

    14. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2

      No, radical Muslims target the US because
      the US is the current HQ of the Jewish-Masonic
      conspiracy that toppled the Ottoman Caliphate
      in 1918.

      Better live under a jewish-masonic rule than under strict islamic rule!
    15. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by laymil · · Score: 1

      yeah, but then, the original poster was referring to the article. learn to interpret context clues. eh...i'm happy as long as the fbi and other federal agencies leave me alone.

    16. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the guy who assassinated Rabin, you lobotomized gook?

    17. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone really needs to put you in a soap dish.

    18. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, if CNN.com were hosted at a third party (ISP) and the FBI or whoever raided that ISP's offices, who gives a flying shit-stick?

      All that has happened is that an ISP was raided, and this ISP happened to host a few sites for various Arab organisations. It hosted a shit load of other sites too, that had fuck all to do with anything else.

      Political Correctness has become so ingrained in people like you these days that you jerk your knee at the mere idea of something racist, and run off on rants about topics you have no understanding of. Get a grip, get a clue, and stop relying on Slashdot for unbiased and unsensationalised news reporting.

    19. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by gaudior · · Score: 1
      What were they doing there? Oh, they didn't say.

      Of course they didn't say what they are looking for. That isn't public knowledge. They only have to tell the judge they got the warrant from. It's in the warrant, and it may become public when there is a trial, or arrests.

      If you are really that concerned, why don't you file an FOI?

    20. Re:They were *NOT* shut down. by torpor · · Score: 2

      I'd rather live in a world where people knew how to deal with information/misinformation and didn't have to *rely* on special interests (press/etc) to make conclusions ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  4. What's sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that this country is based on sedition.

    It's just not cool to be seditious anymore.

  5. this is a nonstory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    there is really not enough information in the article to figure out what they were shut down for. what was the point of posting this? we shouldn't be so quick to take sides just yet. any attempt to analysize would be premature.

    we know michael has a very paranoid anti-government agenda, this is just an inflammating bit here.

    we should hold off on passing judgement till more information is available.

    1. Re:this is a nonstory by BrynM · · Score: 1
      I'd have to inform you that the article was posted by Timothy. I know, next you'll rant about the conspiracy within the editorial staff....

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    2. Re:this is a nonstory by MrT · · Score: 1

      I think the issue of hosts being shut down by the goverment for ANY reason needs is important and newsworthy, ESPECIALLY on those hosts that may be serving content outside the realm of manistream thought.

    3. Re:this is a nonstory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the O.P. is right. This issue is so politically charged and so lacking in detail, they really should've waited for more info. Otherwise this whole website becomes a complete farce.

      Oh wait...

    4. Re:this is a nonstory by MrT · · Score: 1

      Well given that we now have more info, is the story less invalid?

    5. Re:this is a nonstory by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      The hosts being shut down was a side-effect.

      The raid wasn't on the sites... anyone can access their site.

      The raid was on the computers.

  6. Re:texans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be the needle.

  7. Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by Bonker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While the fourth amendment may not have been violated due to the fact that there was a valid search warrant, this kind of tactic sounds like classic 'silencing' to me. The warrant was sealed, right? Why were the offices raided? The quote in the reuters story from the owner indicated that he seemed to think that his news outlets were being targeted for being related to terrorist groups. There was *no* firm reason for the raid given.

    Sounds very totalitarian, doesn't it?

    As a Texan, I'm rather upset that we have a 'anti-terrorism force' at all! Hevean help me if I started to express anti-American views on my website!

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      If you don't want to get along with your community, get the hell out. [Go live somewhere else]

      Why do you think you have the right to sit around making trouble for others?

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    2. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between speaking your mind and making trouble for others you stupid mother fucking piece of shit.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    3. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by davidcorny · · Score: 1

      We have that right because it's freedom of speech/press, which is all that that post is advocating. Speaking one's mind is not "making touble" in the least bit.

    4. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by Nonesuch · · Score: 2
      There is a difference between speaking your mind and making trouble for others you stupid mother fucking piece of shit.

      Not according to the U.S. Bill of Rights. I believe you'll find it in Amendment 1, you totalitarianist fuckwit.

      Basically, that link (http://www.epic.org/free_speech/cohen.html) demonstrates that in the USA, "freedom of the press" and more generally "freedom of speech" is all but absolute.

    5. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      As a Texan, I'm rather upset that we have a 'anti-terrorism force' at all!

      It's Joint Terrorism...is that as in Reefer Madness?

    6. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone know why anything connected HAMAS is illegal in the US? Don't US citizens have the right to organize politically? Can the US government ban groups, even if such groups bomb people in the US? BTW do these terrorist group actually bomb the US? Or is it a politcal thing that they are illegal due to their anti-israeli views or bombing israel? And doesnt the US government occasionally support politicial dissident groups militarily, like the mujahadeen in afghanistan back in the 80s and the 'drug' war today?

    7. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by djrogers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jeez, you even appear to have read the article, and you're still uninformed. The news agencies were not raided - their hosting provider was. A hosting provider that hosts hundreds of customers, including the arab news agencies mentioned... The warrant was sealed, meaning the press doesn't get told who the target of the search was, so the media tied the FBI angle to the arab news agency and let all the lemmings jump to wild conclusions....

      --
      Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
    8. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why were the offices raided?

      Maybe the FBI are investigating child porn, and the ISP in question was hosting a site that had child porn on it.

      Maybe, it was nothing to do with the actual sites hosted at all, and the owner of the business is suspected of being involved in drug smugling, or fraud?

      The quote in the reuters story from the owner indicated that he seemed to think that his news outlets were being targeted for being related to terrorist groups.

      Maybe the owner knows he's guilty, and is trying to set up a smoke screen?

      Stop jerking your knee.

    9. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • Why were the offices raided

      A lonely post below makes the salient point that the Steve Jackson Games case set the precedent that unless the ISP itself was accused of a felony, the data should have been subpoenaed, not physically seized.

      Also, I'd be very interested to know why it takes 80 agents to raid a server farm. What were they expecting? "You can have my root password when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers"?

      So it looks like either the ISP itself was a hotbed of scum like terrorist, paedophles and hard core Linux users, or the FBI has (once again) got it badly wrong. As they have chosen to have no transparency or (immediate) accountability, I'm going to judge on their past behaviour and assume the latter.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    10. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • media tied the FBI angle to the arab news agency and let all the lemmings jump to wild conclusions....

      Why would the North Texas Joint Terrorism Task Force be raiding a server shop? Some of the articles are very clear in their statements. I know media types are notoriously hysterical, but when they're not sure about something, they tend to go hog wild on the "allegedlys".

      • Infocom Corporation was the target of the raid by the North Texas Joint Terrorism Task Force. Infocom runs computer Web sites for more than 500 companies around the world.
      • The government believes Infocom has ties to the Holy Land Foundation, which is located across the street.
      • The U.S. government has been investigating the Holy Land Foundation for some time, believing that it has ties to Hamas, a Palestinian organization which engages in terrorist activities against Israel
      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    11. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      Oh, wait, here's another.

      • at least two US Islamic groups, including the Holy Land Foundation, across the street from Infocom, confirmed they have been served subpoenas for documents related to Infocom

      It now looks like the gubmint reckons that the ISP is primarily a front for the Holy Land Foundation, not a common carrier. Interesting case, interesting precedent.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    12. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by saider · · Score: 2

      Also, I'd be very interested to know why it takes 80 agents to raid a server farm. What were they expecting? "You can have my root password when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers"?

      Its all about law enforcement ego. Everyone wants a piece of the action, so everyone goes on the raid. That's how they validate their budgets and promotions. I gaurantee that 70 of them were standing around in their bullet-proof vests and sidearms sipping a latte for six hours after the initial entry.

      Begin silly anecdote. A friend of mine witnessed this firsthand some years ago. While working for a company that investigates accident claims for insurance companies, he was called to the scene of a boat fire. The sherrif detectives were already on the scene. Shortly afterwards, the marine patrol investigators (state police) showed up because the fire was on a boat in the water and hence in their jurisdiction. All these investigators were walking around with clipboards and cameras. Then comes walking in the BATFAgs - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Agents, carrying clipboards, fancy cameras, and their sidearms. Well, everyone got in each other's way until lunch, when they went their separate ways - except for the sherrif who got the job of watching the scene. Upon returning from lunch, the sherrif investigators were now armed and the marine patrol investigators were now armed. Coupled with the fact that most of the company investigators were legally carrying concealed weapons (in Florida its OK if you have a permit), my friend was looking at a fairly volitile situation, should some kid decide to light some firecrackers. Keep in mind that police are not neseccarily good shooters as evidenced by the Waco fiasco where several agent wounds were either self-inflicted or inflicted by fellow agents.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    13. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by krypteia · · Score: 1

      Not true. Bin'Laden has been known to use US based web pages and news-groups to post orders to his cronies. My guess is that this is what that is about.

      --
      Spazdot-1 in 10 insightfull articles, and 1 in 10,000 insightfull comments ain't bad.
    14. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. According to the radio here in Dallas, the owner of the ISP is also manager or owner of "Holy Land" ministries, which has been found to be contributing money directly to the terrorist group Hamas. Although they have said it's not related that, officially, it is probably something similar.

      S.

    15. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by Dexx · · Score: 1

      "Also, I'd be very interested to know why it takes 80 agents to raid a server farm."

      From above:
      ...the Holy Land Foundation, which is located across the street. The U.S. government has been investigating the Holy Land Foundation for some time, believing that it has ties to Hamas, a Palestinian organization which engages in terrorist activities against Israel.

      There's your answer - they can't read signs and were on the wrong side of the street..

      --
      Feel the fear and do it anyway.
    16. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quote in the reuters story from the owner indicated that he seemed to think that his news outlets were being targeted for being related to terrorist groups

      This is the detail that has been misreported. The news outlet weren't being targeted for being related to terrorism; they were targeted as an act of terrorism.

      The Texas Terror Troopers need to investigate themselves. Someone should tell them that some terrorists have recently been attacking Texas businesses..

    17. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > It now looks like the gubmint reckons that the ISP is primarily a front for the Holy Land Foundation, not a common carrier. Interesting case, interesting precedent.

      Has anyone stopped to ponder the possibility that this might be true? (Even a stopped clock is right twice a day ;)

      Depending on how careless they were, a bit of amateur poking around at DNS records could even establish connections between the ISP and Holy Land. The skills required to establish this aren't much different from those required to track down spammers.

      Speaking of whom, have we forgotten an "ISP" called "Telodigm" which existed only as a front for a certain spammer's ongoing spamming operations for a certain questionable diet product, for the better part of a year?

      And speaking from my own experience, during the first days of the Kosovo conflict, I received (and reported) spam coming from Yugoslavian sites, but relayed through sites located in North America. The sites were set up by various anti-US organizations. In one case, the upstream's homepage revealed that it was most certainly not an ISP, but an activist site. (Needless to say, that spam didn't get reported to the "ISP", as they were clearly complicit in the network abuse.)

      That's not to say there was anything necessarily illegal about these sites or those operating them -- but the geographical locations of the organizations in the DNS records were, to say the least, interesting. (One was registered to an address a few blocks away from a bunch of embassies. What a strange place from which to run an ISP, no?) While I don't have network logs to bear me out, I would not be at all surprised to find that some of these sites tacitly supported (through open SOCKS proxies, for instance) some of the cracking attempts on .mil and .int networks that was reported during this timeframe.

      From where I sit, I have no evidence. Anyone who's followed my postings knows I don't have any trust for the Feebs. But even I at my most paranoid, I am open to the possibility that maybe they knew something we don't. And maybe that was enough to convince a judge. And maybe the judge didn't just rubber-stamp the warrant. And maybe what happened in Texas was a good thing.

      The public sites are up on other providers - apart from a couple hours of downtime, I see little First Amendment risk.

      Whatever may (or may not) have happened behind the scenes at this ISP is being archived for use in a trial. The trial will be held in public, and if there is something wrong, there should be plenty of non-classified evidence that can be put into the record. I'm willing to wait for the trial to make up my mind.

    18. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you AND the idiot who modded you up should read the article, where it specifically, repeatedly metions that the company was raided by the North Texas Joint Terrorism Task Force? Dunno about you, but in *my* mind that would indicate that it was terrorism, not child porn. Which means the only smoke screens would be any raised by law enforcement, now wouldn't it?

      RTFA before posting OR moderating. The article only mentioned this 2 or 3 times.

    19. Re:Can you say 'Freedom of Press'? by mpe · · Score: 2

      lso, I'd be very interested to know why it takes 80 agents to raid a server farm.

      Maybe they are practicing for an overdue raid on a software company run by known criminals...

  8. Bush says no need to dive into medicare or SS. by gengee · · Score: 1, Funny

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush announced today in Washington that there was no longer any need to delve into the Social Security and Medicare surplus. During a press conference at the White House, President Bush said "After carefully studying the behavior of Microsoft, we have determined it to be a terrorist organization. As such, I have instructed the US Office of Foreign Asset Control to seize all assets of Microsoft, and it's founders, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve Balmer."

    The seized assets are expexted to top 150 billion dollars, more than enough to pull the US out from the hole dug by the Bush administrations massive tax cuts.

    --
    - James
    1. Re:Bush says no need to dive into medicare or SS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burning karma, huh?

    2. Re:Bush says no need to dive into medicare or SS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS's main value is the worth of MS Windows and Office. If the government took over them, their value would fall to zero.

    3. Re:Bush says no need to dive into medicare or SS. by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Microsoft ... a terrorist organization ... Steve Balmer

      Having seen the "MonkeyBoy" and "Developers" .avi's, I think I'd rather be held prisoner by Osama bin Laden -- at least I might have a chance of reasoning with him, unlike Steve :)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  9. I guess this means the cold war _is_ over. by GiMP · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have heard of this Arab newstation before. I saw a story about it on american television, I forget which channel.. perhaps BBC-america.

    The arab governments have fears that it may bring democracy.. well, not all of them. The newstation is located in Jordan. The prime-minister of Jordan, on this television documentary I watched admitted that the coming of democracy would be good and supported the efforts of this news station.

    I can not see how their website was breaking American law, although they may have been breaking laws in other countries.. which shouldn't matter if it is hosted in the USA. The most the Arab countries should be able to do, imho, is to arrest the runners of this newstation.

    Of course, the Arab government are afraid to do anything because they would be making martyrs of the procecuted.. I guess that is why they had the USA do the dirty work for them :(

    This is the first direct sign that the USA is turning it's heels on democracy. This is the first time that the USA has tried to dissolve protesters cries of their corrupt, non-democratic government.

    1. Re:I guess this means the cold war _is_ over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I saw a story about it on american television, I forget which channel.. perhaps BBC-america.


      Almost certainly BBC America - a British channel - since the American TV "news" wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole [unless there was a cat stuck up the tree in the next block].

    2. Re:I guess this means the cold war _is_ over. by zenyu · · Score: 2, Insightful


      This is the first direct sign that the USA is turning it's heels on democracy. This is the first time that the USA has tried to dissolve protesters cries of their corrupt, non-democratic government.

      Wha? Um, didn't the US prop up the Shah of Iran, and continue to oppose the populist replacement? Didn't the USA force Fidel to side with the communist because of some sugar plantation interests? Did the 80's in Latin America happen? Didn't we kill 100,000 Filipino's trying to win independence from the US of A?

      First my ass, the US will squash democracy anywhere it might oppose the interests of the empire.

      The cold war rheotoric just made it imprudent to behave badly in public, now we have extraconstitutional "anti-terrorism" and "anti-drug" measures, and we're working on killing anonymous speech too. Can't leave a wrong word unpunished.

    3. Re:I guess this means the cold war _is_ over. by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      "since the American TV "news" wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole [unless there was a cat stuck up the tree in the next block]."

      or in California, if there's a car chase. The only place where they stop all TV just to show a live car chase.

    4. Re:I guess this means the cold war _is_ over. by Mister+Black · · Score: 1

      I think it was on 60 Minutes (CBS) this past weekend.

      Personally, I'm not a big fan of these sealed "unspecified" warrants. If the government is conducting a search you the warrant should state specifially what it is and that information should be available to you. I don't like the idea of phantom charges. This country is slowly getting more fascist every day and both Democrats and Republicans are to blame. (Don't get me started on what I think of seizure laws as they relate to drug charges)

      --

      You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
    5. Re:I guess this means the cold war _is_ over. by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      > The only place where they stop all TV just to show a live car chase.

      Remember, they wouldn't do it if you didn't watch.

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    6. Re:I guess this means the cold war _is_ over. by No+One · · Score: 1

      This is the first direct sign that the USA is turning it's heels on democracy. This is the first time that the USA has tried to dissolve protesters cries of their corrupt, non-democratic government.

      You mean with the exception of Nicaragua, Chile, Indonesia, Vietnam, and practically every other third-world country which has resources for American corporations to exploit, right? The US doesn't give a damn about democracy, even within its own borders. It sure as hell doesn't care about anyone else; dictatorships make corporate exploitation much more efficient, and American foreign policy has been dictated by the corps for decades.

      --

      There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
  10. CLEAR media bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If it were a jewish ISP being shut down then this would be all over the news.

    1. Re:CLEAR media bias by Ms.Taken · · Score: 1
      If it were a jewish ISP being shut down then this would be all over the news.

      As opposed to only appearing on an obscure, underground, news service like Reuters?

  11. FBI claims no bias by firewort · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, this is an interesting situation:

    We have the FBI, who I don't trust.
    We have the Arabic news sources, who I also don't trust.

    The FBI is denying any kind of bias whatsoever, and that the investigation is totally unrelated to terrorist concerns, anti-palestinian, anti-muslim, or anti anything else.

    Still, until we have any better information (which I'm looking forward to) this amounts to a very short period of Government sponsored hacktivism (okay, it's arguable how much hacktivism is involved when the G-men come in and take you offline, but it's the same result as geeks taking down opressors and terrorists sites on the other side of the world.)

    --

  12. Quick news hunt. by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Quick news hunt. by Bronster · · Score: 1

      So I guess those news sites haven't been shut down yet then?

  13. What's good for the goose is good for the gander by TWR · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A radical Hindu web site had its access taken away for good due to complaints by Muslim groups, and nary a Slashdot story on it, or any gnashing of teeth by those defenders of free speech at iViews.


    I guess it's OK for Muslim complaints to take out a Hindu web site, but it's not OK for federal investigation to shut down some Muslim web sites for a few hours.


    BTW, the Hindu web site found hosting again on a server run by a militant Jewish group. The New York Times ran a story on it a few months ago; it's funny what strange bedfellows these sorts of things can make.


    I expect this will be modded down to about -200 in a few minutes...interesting how the truth can do that.


    -jon

    --

    Remember Amalek.

  14. local news links by Emrys · · Score: 5, Informative
    Since people are mentioning lack of real detail on the "why" of the raid, and I live down here in Dallas, I guess I'll be a karma whore:

    http://www.wfaa.com/wfaa/articledisplay/0,1002,310 13,00.html
    http://www.wfaa.com/wfaa/articledisplay/0,1002,311 20,00.html

    1. Re:local news links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Infocom? Those feds better watch out or a grue might eat them.

    2. Re:local news links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the "why" obvious?

      We're getting revenge for the muslims who are holding american's accountable for breaking muslim laws while in muslim lands, but we're kicking ass and taking names for people from foreign lands in ours (who are not breaking any laws in their own lands... aka Skylarov).

      It's a double-standard. Live with it. We're the people who are the biggest prudes in the world yet the biggest whores and sluts (MTV) in the world at the same time. Fuck everyone. We rock. All your countries are belong to us. Bring us your children so we can fuck the little bitches in the ass and throw your women into meat grinders.

    3. Re:local news links by MrT · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link

  15. Deja Vu All Over Again by 1alpha7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This reminds me so much of the Steve Jackson Games raid of a decade ago. Yes, the warrant was valid. And sealed. The effect was to nearly silence a voice the SS didn't like.

    1Alpha7

    --
    Live to be Moderated
    1. Re:Deja Vu All Over Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mind posting a link?

      Thanks

    2. Re:Deja Vu All Over Again by 1alpha7 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mind posting a link?

      Sorry, guess that would be nice. Here ya go

      --
      Live to be Moderated
    3. Re:Deja Vu All Over Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Especially apt since this raid was against Infocom!!!


      Scott Adams better be shacking up with Salman Rushdie pretty soon - the feds fucking hate interactive fiction.


      Why do you think LucasArts stopped doing it and started churning out lame Star Wars games? This is not a coincidence.

    4. Re:Deja Vu All Over Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You even need a link to know about that? That story is mentioned every other week on here at the very least...

  16. Bush is so asking for it by generationcrm · · Score: 1

    Bush is so asking for more heat from arab nations. I can not believe the U.S. government is still pulling this crap off. When is this ignorant pitiful administration going to get their act together. When is Dik Cheny going to start taking over the helm form bumbling Bush. Go Colin Powell!!!!!

    --
    Just an everyday guy....nothing special
    1. Re:Bush is so asking for it by de+Selby · · Score: 1

      Wasn't this a state action--as in Texas?

    2. Re:Bush is so asking for it by de+Selby · · Score: 1

      Scratch that. (Need to read articles before posting...)

    3. Re:Bush is so asking for it by generationcrm · · Score: 1

      utimately the bush administration will take heat from it. especially from an international scope. This is the 3rd blunder this year that hit headlines.

      --
      Just an everyday guy....nothing special
    4. Re:Bush is so asking for it by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

      Exactly where did you hear that Bush had ANYTHING to do with this one? Shit like this happened under the previous administration as well...and odds are it'll happen under the futures ones. Grow up and quit randomly pointing a finger at someone you don't like without ANY substance to back it up.

  17. THE MIGHTY ALLAH WILL PUNISH YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Source please?? Link?? I can make up stories too.

  18. The sites are back up. by Apuleius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And the search was probably justified. Muslim
    terrorist groups use fronts disguised as charities
    to move money around, and the Holy Land Foundation
    has long been suspected of being a financial front
    for Hamas. Since HLF uses the Web to collect
    donations by way of credit cards, a search of the
    Web hosting company is legit.

    1. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? The IRS is a financial front for the US Government, the most aggressive terrorist force on the planet, and the feds aren't closing that down.

    2. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who is not "suspected of having ties with hamas" if we are Muslim, the FBI says we have a common thread with Hamas and are therefore "sympathizers" or "supporters"
      all one billion muslims
      just like saying Timothy Mcveigh was representing the Christian Faith

    3. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By all accounts, McVeigh was an atheist. And we all know that all atheists are murderers and slayers of children.

    4. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      omg omg omg, i dont even HAVE to reply to this, omg omg omgs

    5. Re:The sites are back up. by Apuleius · · Score: 1

      Lay off the Chomsky, bub.
      Do some more reading before
      you call Uncle Sam a terrorist.

    6. Re:The sites are back up. by Apuleius · · Score: 1

      You are free to be a sympathizer. But if you
      funnel money to Hamas, or raise a sufficient
      suspicion to persuade a judge that you are
      funneling money to them, expect to be searched.

      This isn't rocket science.

    7. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if you support Hamas. Hamas are fighting againt a racisct Jewish state with its only goal beng the destruction of the Palestine and its people!
      Long Live Palestine!

    8. Re:The sites are back up. by Apuleius · · Score: 1

      Hamas is fighting to subject Jews to
      Ahl-al Dhimma in their own homeland.

      Tahia Israil!

    9. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fight for the rights of all Gauls.

      Free Gaul!

    10. Re:The sites are back up. by Apuleius · · Score: 1

      These anonymous cowards are crazy!

    11. Re:The sites are back up. by S.+Allen · · Score: 1

      What really gets me about this attitude is that you could say that about any religion if you were unbiased. It just that the US media doesn't use terminology like radical fundmentalist Catholic/Protestant/Jew to describe situations in Northern Ireland/Israel. These terms are reserved for Muslims in the US and other places where US media dominates.

      Using your terminology, we could justify raids on all kind of Synagogues or Churches since they are fronts disguised as charities to move money around. Yes, some of them are. How about that. Deny it an you're either a liar or ignorant. Of course, it's a small minority, but we have such a tendency to focus on the minority and miss the bigger picture.

    12. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, (im not condoning actual terrorism). the term terrorist gets thrown around a lot. just the like the word hacker

    13. Re:The sites are back up. by Apuleius · · Score: 1

      First of all, Kahanist (i.e. Jewish militant) groups are regularly described as radical, findamentalist, and militant, in the US media. These terms are not reserved to Muslims. The IRA is also called by these terms. Second of all, there is a difference between running a religious charity and running a front to move money to groups that lay bombs.

    14. Re:The sites are back up. by Mister+Black · · Score: 1

      Sinn Fein gets away with with raising money in this country and we know where that money goes (Northern Ireland if you don't know).

      --

      You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
    15. Re:The sites are back up. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2

      And the search was probably justified. Muslim
      terrorist groups use fronts disguised as charities
      to move money around, and the Holy Land Foundation
      has long been suspected of being a financial front
      for Hamas. Since HLF uses the Web to collect
      donations by way of credit cards, a search of the
      Web hosting company is legit.

      Jewish business groups use fronts disguised as charities to funnel money into the state of israel, which then uses it to bully it's neighbours in the middle-east.

      Double standard again; the american jews have money, and the american arabs don't. So guess which side the US is leaning towards???

    16. Re:The sites are back up. by Apuleius · · Score: 1

      Yup. And we have the Kennedys to "thank"
      for the lack of prosecutorial action, but
      also the Irish republic for turning a blind
      eye and also the UK. They all turn a blind
      eye to Sinn Fein. For the record, I'm half
      Irish, Catholic descent, and I despise
      Sinn Fein.

    17. Re:The sites are back up. by Apuleius · · Score: 1

      The US government does not regard Israel as a terrorist state. That might be Israel doesn't go around bombing busy restaurants. It might also be because compared to her neighbors, Israel is a girl scout.

    18. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might also be because compared to her neighbors, Israel is a girl scout.

      You mean ready to be fucked? I'm There!

    19. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I slayed a little girl last night as a matter of fact. With my 10" pecker! Yup.. Her are was less then my dick size.

    20. Re:The sites are back up. by Mister+Black · · Score: 1

      I'm half Irish-Catholic too. But I can't fault Sinn Fein. They are trying to get the money they need to fight a war against an occupying force. It's not any different than Ben Franklin going to France to get aid for the US Revolutionary War. I do, however, take exception to some of the tactics that the IRA has used. I can't condone some of the things they have done.

      --

      You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
    21. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whaaaa?

    22. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US also doesn't officially consider Isreal to be nuclear-capable, even though they widely believed to be.

      And Isreal has been bombing many civilian targets lately, although from the comfort of a helicopter or warplane rather than by strapping the bombs to their chests.

    23. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude,

      May I suggest you get out from your bomb shelter and read some history books. How about 50 years ago exactly. The state of israel was founded on terrorism. Legal terrorism i guess, but the reason that name even exists on our maps today is because a group of radicals started bombing and killing all the arabs in sight (in the country called palestine) - the rest just fled.

    24. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always wondered why your homepage isn't http://www.nazi.org/?

      Except for the fonts they apparently got from a Linux box, that is.

      (Set your prefs at -1 to read this.)

    25. Re:The sites are back up. by Mister+Black · · Score: 1

      Israel is not a girl scout. It has admitted to a policy of assassination (in a CNN article this morning the IDF said they were specifically try to kill a particular person). In 1967 Israel attacked Egypt. Their settlement policy of seizing Palestinian owned land and then creating settlements on it is not the work of a girl scout. Also, none of Israel's neighbors are listed as countries of state sponsored terrorism

      --

      You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
    26. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most countries actually have a policy of assassination that they try not to trumpet. The U.S. is actually one that has an official no-assassination policy in effect (for all the good it does).

    27. Re:The sites are back up. by Apuleius · · Score: 2

      Israel's assassinations are targeted at high officials of organizations like Hamas. Hamas's assassinations are targeted at any Jew. In 1967, Israel was under a naval blockade when she attacked. The settlement policy is meant to ensure that a Palestinian state would not be used as a stepping stone to Israel's destruction, as listed in the PLO's Conquest by Stages plan of 1974. And Syria is on the list. Israel is not a girl scout on its own. Israel is a girl scout compared to her neighbors.

    28. Re:The sites are back up. by Mister+Black · · Score: 1

      Assassination is assassination is assassination. How is it that Israel's targeting of Hamas, Force 17, or Palestinian Authority cops is OK? I don't recall any of the Palestinians targeting Peres, Sharon, or Barak. I missed Syria on the list, I scanned it quickly since I'm trying to watch a football game on ESPN2. You should amend your blanket statement about Israel being a girl scout comepared to it's neighbors to maybe only when compared to Syria. As far as the PLO's Conquest by Stages: I'd be pissed as shit too if some foreign force came and kicked me out of my home, tore it down, and relocated me to some camp. What Israel has done is wrong plain and simple.

      And I would like to say that I agree with some of the other people who call Israel an artificial state. I think that they are right in describing it as such.

      --

      You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
    29. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any member of Hamaz, an organization that blows up women and children in resturants deserves to die. During WW2 the US sent a special air task force to shoot down Admiral Yamamoto and his fighting was against soldiers. Killing people that plant bombs is a legitimate act of self defense.

    30. Re:The sites are back up. by CokeBear · · Score: 2

      Artifical State?
      Most states are artificial. Most borders are manmade. (Except the ones that are rivers or other natural barriers)

      --
      Reality has a liberal bias
    31. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I said, Fuck you, scum. Better turn off your computer, the chips in it were likely designed in Israel.

    32. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fucking troll. 'Nuff said.

    33. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone in Northern Ireland are as bad as each other. Yeah, lets throw a blast bomb at some kids, because they want to walk to school down our street! Yeah, that'll show 'em!

      Jeez, I doubt you could even find anyone in NI who could even tell you what they're "fighting" for these days.

      And for the record, I'm British & Atheist. I just think it's time we air-dropped a load of guns and semtex into NI, sealed off the borders, and let everyone at it. They'd all be dead within three weeks, problem over. Their own fault, too.

    34. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You been brainwashed you stupid idiot. Read the documents on the UN website about "The Question of Palestine".

      But of course, the UN in "anti-semetic, anit-Israel, anti-Jew" isn't it?

      If you Jews had this same attitude in the 40's, no wonder Hitler was voted to power.

      And eventually the same will happen in the States, cos frankly, you congress had been flat-out bought by the Israeli media.

    35. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grow up.

      The Pal. don't target Peres or Sharon - they target each and every Israeli.

      Since when is it wrong to kill combatant in a war? As leaders of terrorist groups, those Pal. are combatants. Yet the Pal. targets innocent civilians, and *that's* terrorism.

      How about the US attaking Bin Laden's camps with missiles? How about the US targeting Kdhafi?

    36. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel has killed ten times as many Palestinian civillians than the Palestinians have killed Israelis.

      You'll also notice that it's not the Palestinians who are setting up settlements on their neighbouring country's territory...

    37. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are quite the retard. First of all its not the palestinians who are settling on Israeli land its vice versa. EVERYONE says they are illegal even the US but the israelis think they are too big and special that they dont have to listen to anyone and their type of terrorism is ok. Whether you kill someone with an expensive bomb or a cheap one, its still terrorism. Grow up and stop reading the israeli propaganda.

    38. Re:The sites are back up. by Iron+Webmaster · · Score: 1
      Muslim terrorist groups use fronts disguised as charities to move money around, and the Holy Land Foundation has long been suspected of being a financial front for Hamas.

      Correct, that is the Israeli propaganda line. When are the sites which support Israeli murderers and thieves going to be shut down? Innocent until proven guilty but murder then anyway and passersby and never even pretend to provide evidence.

    39. Re:The sites are back up. by Chacham · · Score: 1

      Israel has killed ten times as many Palestinian civillians than the Palestinians have killed Israelis.


      Care to back that up with numbers and reports? Include Palestinians that were killed, by Israelis, while not fighting, and not in official duties. If you tell me that the media does not report accurately, then there is no point arguing over reports.

    40. Re:The sites are back up. by LordNimon · · Score: 3, Informative
      compared to her neighbors, Israel is a girl scout.

      It's obvious you have been fooled by Jewish propaganda. Example: did you know that Israeli forces back in April destroyed a bunch of olive trees that provide the only source of income for a village in Palestine? They claimed it was for security, but what kind of threat are a bunch of farmers? Just read this: http://www.proactivist.com/opinion/dispatches_isra el_4-2-01.html.

      The United States would be way better off if we distanced ourselves from Israel and befriended the Palestinians instead. This Islamophobia is getting out of hand.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    41. Re:The sites are back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, a few questions:

      A) Someone settle your land. Are you allowed to kill him?
      B) Someone settle your land. Are you allowed to kill his cousine's neighbors?
      C) If the disputed territories don't belong to the Palestinians, it can't be taken from them. So what makes the disputed territories Palestinians?

      "Whether you kill someone with an expensive bomb or a cheap one, its still terrorism." - Indeed. So the USA is a terrorist country. Just look at how may people it killed with expensive bombs over the past decade, in Iran, Iraq, Kosovo and elsewhere. Care to explain why is it ok for the USA nad NATO but bad for Israel?

      Israel is targeting *terrorists*, but sometimes hit innocent bystanders. The Pal., OTOH, usualy target innocent bystanders. Or do you consider waiting in line for a disco in Tel-Aviv or eating a Pizza in Jerusalem to be a terrorist acts?

    42. Re:The sites are back up. by itachi · · Score: 1

      Cointelpro, AIM, the Black Panther Party, Waco, Ruby Ridge, launching missles at Sudan, propping up dictators as a favor to industry (to the point of the term "banana republic" being coined in response), CIA backed drug runners, the "Cocaine Coup" in Bolivia, hiring ex-Nazis for defense research, testing LSD on the populace in a search for mind control, and you say lay off Uncle Sam? If only 10% of it is true, that's still way too much.

      itachi

    43. Re:The sites are back up. by mpe · · Score: 2

      Most countries actually have a policy of assassination that they try not to trumpet. The U.S. is actually one that has an official no-assassination policy in effect (for all the
      good it does).


      What makes you think this "policy" is any more good faith than a great many treaties the US has with the rest of the world?
      Maybe the real policy is more one of "don't get caught".

    44. Re:The sites are back up. by Apuleius · · Score: 2

      Do you know of a site with credit card
      processing to funnel money to Jewish
      terror groups? If so, phone the FBI.

    45. Re:The sites are back up. by Apuleius · · Score: 2

      What kind of threat are a bunch of farmers,
      you ask? Depends. Usually the grove cuttings
      are done in response to sniper activity.

      And if you think cutting olive groves is
      severe, you don't know the Middle East.

    46. Re:The sites are back up. by Apuleius · · Score: 2

      The assassinations would not be okay in
      a country with a functioning legal system.
      Under the conditions Israel is in, there
      is no functioning legal system.

      And there is a difference between killing
      an official of a terrorist group and killing
      any poor schmuck of the wrong ethnic group.

    47. Re:The sites are back up. by Apuleius · · Score: 2

      That is still angelic by world standards.

  19. Infocom? by lightspawn · · Score: 1

    Please tell me it's not the same Infocom as this one.

    In addition to the FBI, they may well find themselves in a legal battle with Activision, who hold all rights to the Infocom property.

    1. Re:Infocom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not the same Infocom as that one.

  20. Re:No Need to Go Nuts About This Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Look at any world map before 1945, there's a
    clearly marked country called 'Palestine'.

  21. Psss DOJ by CptnKirk · · Score: 1

    Maybe the DOJ should just accuse MS of being a terrorist organization, bent on taking over the world. Apparently it's easier than taking them to court.

    1. Re:Psss DOJ by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      Well some terrorists are using MS software, I guess the FBI will raid MS to. This is getting ridiculous, censorship must be stopped.

  22. Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande by Steve+B · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I expect this will be modded down to about -200 in a few minutes...interesting how the truth can do that.


    Where's the "-1: Self-Indulgent Posing" option?

    --
    /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  23. Re:No Need to Go Nuts About This Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at one now, there isn't one.

  24. Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande by Apuleius · · Score: 2

    The site involved was hinduunity.org.

  25. Re:No Need to Go Nuts About This Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is a pretty weak troll. Started out fairly well, but lost its steam at the second paragraph through abuse of hyperbole. By that time, the reader is looking at the poster's id, which immediately clues one in as to the true nature of the post. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

  26. Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by none2222 · · Score: 0, Insightful
    I find it really outrageous that the US, greatest military power on earth, is bowing down to a second-rate, third-world Middle-Eastern nation like Israel. This situation is truly getting out of control.


    I know this post will get a couple of immediate down-mods by the Zionists in the audience, but the Truth is more important than karma anyway.


    The bottomline: the anti-arab bias in the US is a result of US ties with Israel. Israel is, by all counts, a racist, totalitarian state. Throughout the 1980s, the leftists in America loved to denounce South Africa for Apartheid. Where are these same leftist voices now, with regard to Israel? Israel's crimes against the palestinians are truly horrednous. In 1948, the palestinians were made second-class citizens in their homeland of thousands years, in order to recreate the fictional "homeland" of a tribe of eastern europeans. Since then, the palestinians have been, by turn, bombed, gassed, beaten imprisoned, and stripped of their civil rights.


    When the UN attempted to speak-out about Israel's racism, the US pulled out of the recent conference on racism. That alone should tell you something about Israeli power of the US.


    BTW, don't even get me started on white slavery in Israel. That's right, for decades, Israeli's have been kidnapping gentile Eastern European and Russian girls and keeping them as sex slaves. This practice meets with the tacit approval of the Israeli government. This is not a secret, and I am not making this up. Even 60 minutes and the New York Times, two strongholds of Zionism in the US have discussed the situation.

    --
    If you have a problem with my views, REPLY, don't moderate!
    1. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by smack.addict · · Score: 2
      Get a fucking grip. It is people like you who make middle east peace impossible.


      Now, I am about as pro-Palestinian as things get. But your rhetoric of racism and Zionism is nauseating. Yes, Israel is a fake country plucked out of Palestinian land. But that was 50 years ago. Israel exists and is populated with people who view themselves as Israeli.


      The challenge is to carve up fair and equitable borders between the two countries. This is an extremely difficult challenge. The alternative, however, is mutual destruction. So stop whining about irrelevancies.

    2. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by Squid · · Score: 2

      Fat chance. The problem isn't that you have to divide up Israel fairly and equitably - the problem is that there's a couple of major religions born there. The followers of those religions are of the opinion (delusion) that God has promised that land to THEM - so it is therefore their sacred duty to occupy that land and throw out the followers of those Other Religions because they're obviously working for Satan.

      I don't think the situation will ever be resolved.

    3. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      LOL@ Parent (mod me up man!)

      This was the post I was waiting to respond to.

      Yes Palistine was a state, yes it was TAKEN from them for the jews. But why was that? Remember what happened to millions of jews before they officially set up the state of israel.

      There were many Jews living in Palestine then, what bothers people is the transfer of ownership.

      What people don't remember is for many years Isreal/Palestine and many other lands were taken by Moslems (ITS NOT MUSLIM OUTSIDE THE USA!!!) and retaken by Christians and yada yada yada.

      The Moslems are not a kind bunch. What you have here isn't a Jewish/Moslem problem - it could potentially be a American problem.

      I don't in any way mean to start a 'witch-hunt' as /. called it. Simply put - in the Islamic religion there a word called jihad... we've all heard that once or twice. It means holy war. If you believe that Jews are the only ones disliked by the Moslems, you are sadly mistaken.

      To all Moslems there is a Islamic world and a non-Islamic world. The goal (in present time, radicals) of every Islamic person is to destroy the 'Evil' non-Islamic world.

      Really read up before you echo past postings.

      The Jews/Israel has nothing to do with this whole story. USA is the great Satan, not because of religios reasons, mainly because of our lack of morals. We don't enforce morals on a national level. What is going on in the middle east doesn't have much to do with the disdain Moslems hold with the USA - although it is part. [ps: One Moselem goal/belief is to simply take over all the land/riches for their own (although live poor?!) but America is also in that business, or we try to be]

      In Howard Bloom's book "The Lucifer Principle"** there is a passage about how Bishop Desmond TuTu (sp) was speaking in front of an Islamic group and the crowd held signs that read: "On Saturday we'll kill the Jews and on Sunday we'll kill the Christians!" (Sat & Sun is the 'sabbath' dates)

      Once again, this isn't a post saying... 'let's kill the Moselems!' or even violate their rights. There isn't a YRO story here. This isn't DeCSS site:(which is illegal no matter which way you slice it don't forget)

      This is a story which involved computers and servers so /. knowingly put it up because all the anti-Israel posts. You have rights, so does the government - if they have cause they can get a warrant and get you.

      **The Lucifer Principle is a great book that speaks on history and how simple ideas have changed it course. I'd recommed it to anyone who watches politics (and the phuckers in it) closely. There is many stories about Moselems but there is fairly stories about vary many cultures and religions. The Moselems are a good example of how an idea can get so much power, because its a great idea! I applaud the Moselems because the ability to control its followers so well. Get it from the library (sorry no gutenberg texts) or amazon.com - great read - reads like a awsome story. Sagan-esqe writing.

    4. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by smack.addict · · Score: 2
      You are completely ignorant of Islamic practices. You are simply a hate-monger.


      In fact, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam ALL have their nastier bits. They all have elements that preach hatred, and they all have elements that preach love and tolerence. None of them claim the moral high ground over the others. However, just about any other religion on earth is more tolerent than the three of these religions.

    5. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Palistine was a state, yes it was TAKEN from them for the jews. Remember what happened to millions of jews before they officially set up the state of israel.

      Yes, I remember. But if someone destroys your house and kill your family, you don't get to take over your neighbor's house because you always liked his swimming pool. The person who does the damage is the one who has to make restitution.

      If the Holocaust were the main issue, a homeland for European Jews would have been carved out of Germany. But that's not what Zionist radicals wanted, and they managed to twist the German crimes against Jews into an excuse for committing crimes against Palestinians.

      Isreal - like the U.S. - is stolen land. Like the U.S., it was stolen based on faith (faith in "manifest destiny" in the U.S. case). And like the U.S., it's been around too long for the natives to have a hope in hell of getting their land back.

      To all Moslems there is a Islamic world and a non-Islamic world. The goal (in present time, radicals) of every Islamic person is to destroy the 'Evil' non-Islamic world...One Moselem goal/belief is to simply take over all the land/riches for their own

      Your anti-Islamic prejudice and ignorance is nothing short of astounding. I'm tempted to think that you're trolling, but unfortunately there are a large number of people who do hold the beliefs you illustrate.

      Followers of Islam are no more a monolithic group than are Christians, Jews, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, or Zorasterians. There are wise people, and scary mofos, in each group. Unfortuately, the scary mofos are the ones in power right now in Israel, and they're encouraging the scary mofos amoung the Palestinians.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    6. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by mikelieman · · Score: 1
      This isn't DeCSS site:(which is illegal no matter which way you slice it don't forget)
      An Unconstitutional "law" is NOT A LAW, and shall not be obeyed.
      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    7. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      But you might get your neighbor's house if he gave aid and comfort to the arsonist who burned down yours. Check out who the Mufti of Jerusalem at the time of the Holocaust was best friends with. Hint, he planned to ride into Jerusalem in Rommel's baggage car.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    8. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Rrrgghh

      You don't get to pick which laws you want! There is ways to get something done. I smoked lots of pot, and the law is still on the books, just because I don't agree with the law doesn't make it go away.

      Problem is, the S.Court hasn't repealed the law, and thats the only way it can be declared unconstitutional. A /. post doesn't do the trick.

    9. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Tell me one part of that post that is wrong?!? In retrospect I know that I phrased a few things wrong and I apologize. I have no comments there are lies though.

      Yes they all have their nastier parts. The only one that doesn't is Christianity! No where in the actual beliefs does it say to hurt anyone... they just do it (a lot). The pope killed many peoples searching for the grail - crusades - Ireland... all of these things breach the faith. Although, Jesus said it's 'ok' to dislike the rich.

      Jews thought that God was with them in battles against other cultures/religions and the Koran specifically points out that non-violence isn't the answer.

      I am not a hate monger, and I really resent that. I do know that someone could take my post as saying 'those evil Moselems!' but I post this to urge people to not take it that way.

      But! on the other hand Moselems are not the most innocent people that other posters would like you to believe. Yes! People kill each other - they always will. Moselems will kill Jews and the opposite.

      It's completely ok for you to kill the other side in battle or over fundamentals. This will happen till we are all dead - there isn't much anyone can do about it.

      **PS I CAN'T FIND ANYWHERE THAT MENTIONS JEWS OR MOSELEMS IN THE STORY ** THATS THE PROBLEM WITH THE WHOLE STORY BEING ON SLASHDOT - THIS IS A USA PROBLEM!! PEOPLE TAKE IT AS A JEWISH BACKED SEARCH**

    10. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      I guess it could be argued that God himself gave the land to the Jews... but we don't need to go there.

      But please check your history books! Jews lived in the region before the Islamic religion ever took root!

      The greeks ran the land, the romans ran the land - the whole time the Jews where the people who lived there. Most everyone ran the land besides Jews until after WWII.

      So how is it the neighbors land? What about the crusades years later after romans and greeks ran the land? What about the ottoman empire? Wasn't there not a time Moselems owned just about everything from Turkey to Spain? Oh, there is mosques in Spain? Who built them??

      Thats the problem - people only see back 50 years.

      For years each religion (and some non believers) has gone in and taken this and that over! They killed many, many people in doing so. The handing the keys over of Palestine was one of the most non-violent transfers of ownership ever.

      Read that book mentioned above, you will learn how things really go down and why. No one is innocent and I don't mean to give that impression at all.

    11. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by Chacham · · Score: 1

      In 1948, the palestinians were made second-class citizens in their homeland of thousands years, in order to recreate the fictional "homeland" of a tribe of eastern europeans


      Palestinians were there for thousands of years? Two thouand years ago is was a Jewish country. After that it laid desolate for hundreds of years with minor Jewish settlements. Some Arabs moved in a bit after that and then there were fights between Christians and Arabs. After that, both Jews and Arabs lived there.

      As far as calling it a fictional homeland. They definitely lived there. If you argue that, I am not willing to argue the point, as I doubt it would be worth it. It you argue the term "homeland", well, that may run into philosophical and/or religious arguments.

    12. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Once again.. my facts are moded as flamebait - yet someone calling me a hatemonger is modded up.

      Nothing in that post isn't true! The whole damn article is a troll.

      Somehow it's become a question of the middle east and not even the fact the FBI had a warrant.

      I guess special rights should be given to Muslims and everytime one is pulled over for speeding its because we are an ally with Israel.

      Simply put, Islamic nations don't like us! There has been attacks on our own soil by {{{RADICALS}}}

      Bin Ladin? He's a radical - he's hit US targets overseas. He's got PGP, uses stego, he hates the USA.

      I know half of this hate for the USA comes from our friends being Israel - but the rest comes from other areas!! USA sucks, they know it - and they want to take us down. There is a threat.

      Even if we hated Israel next week, Islamic countries aren't going to be our friends. Part of this hate was started on behalf of Russians (DURING WWII, NOT AFTER) who saw the radicals as an easy way to hate us. Why do you think they own Migs?

      When FDR, Churchhill and Stalin meet in Iran for a chat FDR suggested planting trees would help stop the landscape from eroding. This was taken as an insult!

      Our cultures don't mix, they won't. They don't like us - the FBI saw a threat that we didn't see so they went in.

      This has 0 to do with religion or the Mid-east.

    13. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by smack.addict · · Score: 2
      What you are saying is totally false. Completely false. You may resent me calling you a hate monger, but when you spread lies about a group of people that are designed to make that group of people look evil, that is called being a hate monger.


      Yes, there are part of the Koran that advocate violence against infidels. But that is not really the message of the Koran any more than the message of the Old Testament is to kill homosexuals or the message of the New Testament is to kill Jews. The fact is all Judeo-Christian texts are self-contradictory and advocate violence in places and pacifism in other places. Extremists of all three faiths have historically used these contradictions to justify their violent, evil behavior. That goes for suicide bombers, crusaders, and Jewish terrorists. If you want to start painting religions by the evil done in their name, Christianity is the place to start looking. More evil has been done in the name of Christianity than any other religion.


      My point, however, is not that Christianity is evil. It is that you cannot describe one religion in terms of its extremists and then ignore the actions of extremists in another religion.

    14. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by smack.addict · · Score: 2

      Once again.. my facts are moded as flamebait - yet someone calling me a hatemonger is modded up.


      Maybe it is because you are a hate monger?



      Simply put, Islamic nations don't like us!


      Islamic nations do not like us? You mean like our allies Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey? Or do you mean the Albanians we saved from genocide in Kosovo? Simply put, that statement alone shows you are an ignorant hate-monger. Some Islamic nations like us, some do not, and most have mixed feelings about us. Just like Christian nations.


      We have not actually done much, anyways, to endear ourselves with the Islamic world. We supported a policy that forced Palestinians from their homes to create an artificial Jewish state. Wonder why they would be pissed off at us? I would if I were them.


      You mention bin Laden? He is one lunatic. The world is full of lunatics of all religions, races, and nationalities. You cannot judge a group by its lunatics.



      Even if we hated Israel next week, Islamic countries aren't going to be our friends. Part of this hate was started on behalf of Russians (DURING WWII, NOT AFTER) who saw the radicals as an easy way to hate us. Why do you think they own Migs?


      Who is "they"?


      Oh yeah, I forgot. You think all Muslims are bin Laden clones. That would be a sign of an ignorant hate-monger... the tendency to make sweeping generalizations against a very diverse group of people. Some Muslims have American planes. Some have Russian planes. Some are African-Americans who play basketball in the NBA and are among the most pious people on earth. Some are Arab. Some are southeast Asian. Some are Iranian. Some are Spanish. Etc.



      Our cultures don't mix, they won't. They don't like us - the FBI saw a threat that we didn't see so they went in.


      Well, so far you have not exactly demonstrated a commanding understanding of Islamic culture. It is therefore hard for me to understand how you jump to the conclusion that our cultures cannot mix.

    15. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      9/12/01

      Really?

      Lets see

    16. Re:Once Again, US kow-tows to Israel by smack.addict · · Score: 2

      Really. I am not sure what point you think you have.

  27. Stop the FUD. by Rothfuss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The talk of *BIAS* is ridiculous spincasting by the media and by people that like to constantly complain about persecution. The FBI serves warrants and searches businesses all the time. That's part of their job, like it or not. They don't sit around a water cooler and say "Let's go raid some Moslem businesses this week...that'd be a hoot. We don't like Moslems."

    Come on - that's just stupid. They're working an investigation and this is where it brought them. There are NO details in either article...just journalists looking for a story they can blow out of proportion. If it had been a warehouse where large quantities of twine is stored by a couple of surly old kansas natives it wouldn't have even made the news. No FUD value. That kind of thing happens every week.

    -Rothfuss

    1. Re:Stop the FUD. by notext · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're working an investigation and this is where it brought them. There are NO details in either article...

      The reason there are no details in either article is the fact that they give no details. The warrant is sealed. They haven't said why they are searching the stuff or what they are searching for.

      Thats what makes this a unique case. The would have to arrest me to search my stuff without giving me a reason they were searching it or what exactly they were searching for, because I sure as hell wouldn't let them do it.

    2. Re:Stop the FUD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>They don't sit around a water cooler and say "Let's go raid some Moslem businesses this week...that'd be a hoot. We don't like Moslems."

      They probably dont say it but they take there hints from people like Emerson, who recently said and I quote
      'The federal authorities should use the tools it already has in closing down these web sites and organizations'
      source iViews.com

      And considering he is on an anti-Islam campaign (anyone remeber the Oklahoma bombing?) it is interesting that the feds acted so quickly.

  28. Holy Zork! by anticypher · · Score: 2, Funny

    They've shut down Infocom.

    You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike. It is dark, if you proceed, you are likely to be eaten by a grue.

    xyzzy AC

    --
    Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
    1. Re:Holy Zork! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish that damn guy with the bag would stop coming around! He keeps stealin' my shit.

  29. Re:No Need to Go Nuts About This Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yes, i bet if asked u would bet your sould that they were stockpiling guns in the basement and had bought land out in the nowheres of west texas to launch an invasion of the U.S.

    do people GET any more naive?

    jew hating and anti-israel? maybe if jewish isrealies (are their any others?) were bullzdozing ur house and attacking ur citys cops with American tanks and Apache helicopters ud be anti-israeli to

    funneling funds to terrorist organizations eh? yah i bet the food all those starving children get arms them very well against israeli snipers.
    I guess the $3 Billion the U.S. gives israel each year doesnt count

    how many years must u live in a land before it is yours? or is it like america and the indians, america beat them so america moved in oh so honorably and the indians? they were never americans, this is america

  30. sealed warrant? wtf? by bat'ka+makhno · · Score: 4, Troll
    What bothers me the most is the continuous stream of legal obfuscation perpetrated by government agencies. How many times in the past couple of years have we heard of defense lawyers denied critical information allegedly out of "greater state interest." Some guys who were allegedly linked to the World Trade Center bombing were kept in jail, without being charged, for several years, until even the DA or whoever decides those things decided not to prosecute the case, since the government just didn't have one.

    What kind of shit is this? If you're going to be violating people's property and impeding commerce, you'd better have a damn valid reason that will stand up to public scrutiny. Otherwise, we might as well get rid of trial by jury, the pesky fifth amendment or the obligation to prove one's guilt before issuing a sentence. Yeah, that's the ticket, just like in those documentaries about the Third Reich that must be the talk of the town in Quantico nowadays.

    This makes me sick.

    1. Re:sealed warrant? wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bet you are a big-nosed, bearded, fat, ugly, shit coloured, frizzy haired JEW ?

    2. Re:sealed warrant? wtf? by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      There are myriads of ways to keep a person as a polotical prisoner or to harass/torment them legally here in the USA. If you have enough money to spend on court costs and fees you can have anyone you want imprisioned. Hell a woman only has to just say a man raped her to get him in jail with a red R on his forhead for life, they dont require evidence. Accuse someone of Sexual harassment to get them easily fired at any workplace in the USA... no evidence required here either.

      If you have the money you can bend the law to follow your agenda.... justice and what is right is not an issue or important in the United States.

      (to remind everyone.. I live in the USA, and am appaled at our completely corrupt govt.)

      Oh and to make the feminatzi's back off.. I believethat if a man actually rapes a woman he needs to have his thing chopped off... publically mulitated would be better. and real sexual harassment needs to be dealt with harshly... but far far too many women take this power and abuse it... (and men too!)

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:sealed warrant? wtf? by rpg25 · · Score: 1
      Can you give some substantiation for your charges here? In particular your claim that "Some guys who were allegedly linked to the World Trade Center bombing were kept in jail, without being charged, for several years." Were these U.S. citizens? I'd be very surprised if that was true, since that would clearly be unconstitutional. On the other hand, foreigners have more limited rights in some cases.

      But if you're going to post inflammatory stuff like this, it'd be great to see some substantiation. Who are these guys? Where can we find out more about them?

    4. Re:sealed warrant? wtf? by bat'ka+makhno · · Score: 1
      It was on the news a couple of years ago. Stories like this come up fairly often, especially in periods of hysteria whipped up by the government after actual or alleged terrorist activity. Here is some stuff to read, courtesy of google:

      http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/fbi m.htm
      http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/2000IV/msg03767.html
      http://www.twf.org/News/Y1999/1130-SecretEvidence. html
      http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/oct1999/ins-o22. shtml
      http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1999/02/990222-in.htm

      There are obvious biases involved, but I leave it up to you to figure out the current state of our democratic institutions.

  31. I wish I had some mod points... by keepper · · Score: 1
    because you are so right...

    This whole middle east situation is so one sided, it really sickens me.

    I would rant on and on, but am sure on slashdot, it would fall on death ears...


    One need only to look at the reaction of the US to
    the NGO resolution, which is NON biding to the UN.
    SO they basically punished the UN, by usual us tactics, ie, playign wounded little girl, for a resolution drafted, and rightly so, by an OUTSIDE UN BODY.


    HEH, it never ceases to amaze me.

  32. Re:i agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yar, Shabash, bhot shukriya bahai :-)

  33. You know who to call... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    . . . North Texas Joint Terrorism Task Force . . .
    Perhaps Looge, the world's foremost expert on Joint Terrorism, can be of assistance.

    -- The_Messenger
    Victim of Michael "The Antisemite" Sims' IP Block of Doom

  34. Protection from vicious electrons by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    I'm glad that we have police forces to protect us from those vicious electrons, that so frequently get out of control and become destructive.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  35. Re:No Need to Go Nuts About This Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're never going to be taken seriously until you learn how to spell like a civilized human being.

    As for the Palestinians, they are a conquered people and have no right to their "homeland" in the current political situation. Of course a major blow against the rulers of 'their' land that was strong enough to propel them into power would be useful to reclaim their homelands.

  36. Re:No Need to Go Nuts About This Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes the jews came along and destroyed it. sometimes i wonder why hitler never managed to finish all of 'em off so that we wouldnt have this problem today.

  37. What amazes me... by gamgee5273 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...is that the Muslim community in this country actively supported George W. Bush in the presidental campaign because they were scared of Gore's choice of Lieberman. However, when you look at the record and the campaign statements, Bush continually expressed views that were anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian, while both Gore and Lieberman were clearly on the side of following Clinton's aggressive stance on helping the peace agreement. And they're surprised that the FBI, under an Attorney General who holds some really antiquated political views, have taken these actions.

    Frankly, this doesn't surprise me. George W. Bush and his administration have no problem with you being a different skin color, economic/social class, sexual orientation, etc. as long as you act like them. I'm not saying the Dems are better, but at least there's some indicator from them that you don't have to goosestep to their march exactly the way the Republicans do...

    I'm seriously thinking of moving to Canada until the Shrub presidency is over if this type of action is going to become commonplace. I definitely don't want to raise my children (who will be European/Filipino) in an environment that the Bush Clan seems to think ideal if that environment means silencing dissent and allowing banks to close accounts based on religious views...

    1. Re:What amazes me... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      It's sad but true. The radical and extreme Muslim groups such as Hamas etc. have the world in fear. Muslims are not anymore violent than any other people, but when a kid wraps himself in tnt and nails and knows he'll get to heaven, well extreme actions are retaliated.....

    2. Re:What amazes me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada? Go? Heh how 'bouts now, pad're and take your bleating fagocent drool with you. Have you gone yet?

    3. Re:What amazes me... by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1

      "Anonymous Coward" indeed...

    4. Re:What amazes me... by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 2

      Care to name some of those "anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian" views, or maybe even back up your "goose-stepping" crack by explaining what you think Republicans have in common with the National Socialist Workers Party?

      Oh, and if Canada is fool enough to take you, buh-bye...

      Back on topic: curious how only the local news site mentioned the Hamas connection that is the target of the FBIs search. Rather important detail for the nationals to omit, isn't it?

    5. Re:What amazes me... by Xoro · · Score: 1

      ...is that the Muslim community in this country actively supported George W. Bush in the presidental campaign because they were scared of Gore's choice of Lieberman

      Actually, that's not it. The Palestinians were very unhappy with Clinton's passive stance on the peace agreements, doing nothing as Israel repeatedly delayed implementation. Also, Bush camper Jim Baker is fairly popular with the Arabs. Apparantly, whatever deals were cut before the Gulf War were cut squarely, and he had quite a bit of public trust in Arab countries. His remark that "we don't need Jewish money to win this election" scored big, too. Even better, I think that remark came right on the heels of one of those "Greater Israel" outbursts (from Sharon?) that make muslims antsy. Anyway, many Arabs thought their side got a better hearing under Bush Sr. than Clinton, and hoped for more from Jr.

      That said, I don't disagree with Canada.

      --
      Kill, Tux, kill!
    6. Re:What amazes me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      but when a kid wraps himself in tnt and nails and knows he'll get to heaven

      From a Baby Al-gap ad in a mideast newspaper:



      If looks could kill then your little Ishmar will be a holy warrior in these digs. He'll be the talk of the town wrapped in this jacket studded with nails pulled from the coffins of infidels. And for when the dessert is cold, the TNT insulated vest will keep him toasty warm! If you're going to send yoiur baby to Alah, send him to baby Al-gap first!


      On sale next week: towels towels towels! You'll be screaming your yadas when you see our matching selection of towels and head weights!

    7. Re:What amazes me... by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1

      Back it up? Two words: Strom Thurmond.

    8. Re:What amazes me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, Bush camper Jim Baker is fairly popular with the Arabs.

      His famous line: "Fuck them. They [the Jews] don't vote for us anyway."

      (Bush Sr. hardline stance was one of the factors causing Isreal's rightwing government to collapse. Pity his son doesn't seem to be following on that path.)

    9. Re:What amazes me... by elefantstn · · Score: 2

      This post was just like some of my essays in junior high. I had no idea what I was talking about, so I just wrote for paragraphs on things that would be interesting if true, but had no true bearing on reality whatsoever. I mean, where to start? There's not much to disagree with, it's just paragraph after paragraph of counterfactual statements.


      As other posters above have noted, Clinton's stance towards the peace agreements was not "aggressive," it was just trying to put a good face on negotiations that were quickly falling apart.


      but at least there's some indicator from them that you don't have to goosestep to their march exactly the way the Republicans do...

      Oh really. Try being a pro-life Democrat. The late Bob Casey, former governor of Pennsylvania, spent decades in service to the Democratic party, but was never given a chance to speak at the Democratic convention because of his pro-life views. In my opinion, one of the sad realities of American politics today is that the left has become just as reactionary as the right, willing to ostracize a person who holds unorthodox views on "liberal" issues as quickly as Pat Robertson would a homosexual. There is no liberal, progressive party in this country - those who label themselves "liberal" are as close-minded as their extremist counterparts.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    10. Re:What amazes me... by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1
      Yawn.

      Obviously you didn't actually read what was written - which seems par for the course on /.. Sad.

      I didn't say I liked the Democratic party, I didn't say I was a liberal. I merely said that the Dems were slightly better. And they are. But only slightly so. Next time, read the words as they have been written and you won't be as confused.

      And, sorry kid, but Clinton was more aggressive than any other president (except Carter) when it came to Mid-East peace. Look at how much time he spent on it in the last year of his time in office. Let's be honest: one does not secure a legacy on Mid-East peace negotiations. There are other ways to do it. I'm not saying he was being selfless and doing it solely out of the kindness of his heart, but there were other ways for him to try and paint over the problems with the peace process.

  38. Re:No Need to Go Nuts About This Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, about 50 years ago there was no such thing as "Israel", and the people you suppose that don't exist lived there.

  39. Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande by athmanb · · Score: 1

    Yeah, go ahead. Don't feel any need for proof or similarily silly things.
    If I had any points, I would have modded you down, that's for sure...

  40. Israel is indeed racist, but not esclavagist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US is populated with strange people, most of the population thinks that jews have all rights to kick the ass of palestinians who are in their way, or they have a radical right wing view that jews are evil pigs that enslaves cute christian woman!

    Look at reality folks! Jew are not especially more evil then any other people. They just happen to think that they have the right to a certain territory and that thus they dont need to respect land ownership of non-jew. If you would be jew, you would do the same thing!

    I personnaly think that they should stop to kill political leaders,keep their armed forces within their territory and wait until it cools off...

    You know people who blow themselves have pretty good reasons usually. (Son or father killed by israeli soldier)

  41. Some big differences by L-Train8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Hindu Unity website incident is a very different situation. The site had some strong anti-Muslim views, particularly towards Muslims in India. Stuff that could be interpereted as a call for violence against Muslims in India (the current home page has a cartoon of Muslims stabbing to death a Hindu mother). And people complained to the ISP, who told the organization to take their business elsewhere. Here is an article.

    The case of the ISP in Texas involves the government shutting down, albeit temporarily and as an incidental consequence of searching for evidence, lots of websites without explanation, only a sealed warrant. This includes one of the most prominent sites news of the middle east that is not controlled by a government of the region.

    People get up in arms about controversial websites, like porn sites, hate sites, spammer sites, radical anti-abortion sites, etc, all the time. And sometimes, complaints to the ISP are effective in forcing the site to move to an ISP that is less concerned about complaints from the public. That isn't really news.

    The government shutting down 500 mostly arab-related websites without explanation should be considered more newsworthy.

    --

    Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
    1. Re:Some big differences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh. They have a warrant. The ISP knows what the government is looking for. It's on the warrant. They're only allowed to search for materials that are ON the warrant.

      If the ISP has the warrant, knows what the government is searching for, yet remaining mum... perhaps they should speak up? Or perhaps they don't want to speak up?

    2. Re:Some big differences by L-Train8 · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps the ISP just doesn't know.

      From the article:
      The FBI declined to specify the target of the search warrant, which is under seal in a federal court, except to say in a statement that the search was ``one aspect of a more than two-year investigation that is ongoing.''

      The warrant is sealed. That means that law enforcement has demonstrated a compelling reason for portions of it to remain secret. This could mean that the identity of an informant could be compromised, targets of an imminent raid could be alerted, or whatever. They are supposed to release as much of the warrant as possible, but it may be that the ISP was only shown that the FBI could search their premises for any computer data. The crime under investigation doesn't even have to be named. In a situation with a sealed warrant, you just have to trust that the FBI is right.

      It would be a lot easier to trust the FBI if it weren't for stuff like the Steve Jackson raid, mentioned in an earlier post, which had a similiarly sealed warrant.

      --

      Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
    3. Re:Some big differences by TWR · · Score: 2
      People get up in arms about controversial websites, like porn sites, hate sites, spammer sites, radical anti-abortion sites, etc, all the time. And sometimes, complaints to the ISP are effective in forcing the site to move to an ISP that is less concerned about complaints from the public. That isn't really news.


      Now, I haven't checked to see exactly which sites were taken down temporarily, but there are several Muslim organizations in the US who raise money for groups that US government considers terrorist groups. That's illegal.


      My guess is that at least one of the web sites falls into this category. We're not talking about sites that preach hate and violence, we're talking about sites that finance it. I'm not saying that every Muslim web site or organization is hateful or violent or whatever, but they do exist.


      By your standards, this shouldn't be news, then.


      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    4. Re:Some big differences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Now, I haven't checked to see exactly which >sites were taken down temporarily, but there are >several Muslim organizations in the US who raise >money for groups that US government considers >terrorist groups. That's illegal.

      Of course. Thats also political. The US government marks any group that attacks Israel as a terrorist group due to national politics. Marking these groups as terrorist groups defines them as enemies. And enemies are defined on political boundaries.

      Same actions performed by an Israeli state would of course not be considered terrorist, due to their political alignment to the US, and are in fact, supported.

      Ordinary citizens should just go ahead and express their views, and donate to whatever political group they feel is worthwile, regardless of the politics at the national level. Should that be illegal?

    5. Re:Some big differences by L-Train8 · · Score: 1

      Well, if the government announced they were taking down some illegal websites that are funding terrorist activity, maybe that wouldn't be news for Your Rights Online. But the FBI shut down lots of websites (again, temporarily and incidental to searching for evidence), including one of the largest arabic news sites on the web. And they didn't say why, though the speculation is that at least one of the affected sites was somehow related to terrorism.

      As someone else pointed out elsewhere, if this was an ISP that hosted CNN online, you can bet they would have found some less disruptive method of gathering evidence. Obviously, CNN is large enough to have redundant systems and would not be brought down by the search of one ISP, I'm just trying to make a point. This raid violated the free speech rights of many web sites, including that of Al-Jazeera.

      This incident brings up some interesting questions. How big and important does a news site have to be before the FBI will respect its right to free speech? Is it okay to trample on the free speech rights of any website hosted by an ISP that also hosts a suspicious one? Does the fact that the Al-Jazeera site is a major source of news for people in Quatar and other middle eastern countries, and not people in the US, mean that it shouldn't enjoy the same kinds of constitutional protections?

      These questions don't come up when talking about the Hindu Unity incident.

      --

      Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
    6. Re:Some big differences by TWR · · Score: 2
      Same actions performed by an Israeli state would of course not be considered terrorist, due to their political alignment to the US, and are in fact, supported.


      Oh, you're full of shit.


      Are you familiar with Kach and Kahane Chai? They are radical Jewish groups who preach that Israel needs to throw every Arab out of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.


      Israel has banned them as illegal terrorist groups and the US government considers them to be terrorist groups. There have been arrests and the FBI gathering evidence from JDL servers as evidence that the JDL is providing funds to Kach and Kahane Chai. Once again, not news on Slashdot. It's the JDL which is partnering with HinduUnity, BTW.


      If the major Arab news source is so poorly set-up that they only have a single hosting point, then gee, this sort of thing is going to happen. What's the next Slashdot/iViews headline: "Zionist Racist Backhoe Takes Out Islamic Voice on Internet"?


      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

  42. It shouldn't amaze you. by Apuleius · · Score: 2

    Jewish-Muslim relations are strained because for centuries these relations were dictated by Sharia Law, which placed Jews in a submissive position. A good portion of the Muslim community of the US regards Jews as if they (well, we) have cooties, and this won't change any time soon. At least since the US has never been under Sharia, Muslims and Jews can try to build relations that are not based on Sharia. The Mideast, however, was under Sharia law, and there are fatwas that explicitly forbid having equality with Jews in the region. Since Jews won't settle for less than equality nowadays, the Mideast is a hot potato.

    1. Re:It shouldn't amaze you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Jewish and Muslim relations were very good until 1948 when the illegal state of Israel. Illegal because it was created on Arab land!

    2. Re:It shouldn't amaze you. by Apuleius · · Score: 1

      Is that what your teachers told you?
      Do you not know about the massacres of
      1929, 1936, and 1941? Do you not know about
      the Code of Omar? Read Mark Twain's book
      "Innocents Abroad" about the status of Jews
      among Arabs in the 1860's. It was not a pretty
      picture.

    3. Re:It shouldn't amaze you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really kills me to hear about Jews are entitled to some homeland because they are victims of mass atrocities. They are certainly not the only ones who have been done wrong to.

      Face it, the Jews are entitled to their homeland because the powers of the other states who would usurp that land are powerless.

      Stop making excuses and putting the divine retribution mask on the creation of Israel and accept that Israel has just as much right to be as any other country in the region or around the world. Might may not make right, but it draws the borders.

    4. Re:It shouldn't amaze you. by Apuleius · · Score: 1

      I assume you are the first AC who started
      this cascade. You claimed Jewish-Muslim
      relations were fine until 1948. I gave
      you several pointers to show that relations
      were not fine. Are you going to concede
      the point?

    5. Re:It shouldn't amaze you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm actually not the one who started the cascade, I'm the AC who posted the Free Gaul and Atheists are Killers quips somewhere above.

      No one denies that the Jews have been wronged. Except for the OP in this thread, I doubt anyone would claim that Jews and Arabs have had blissful coexistence. In fact, they have probably been wronged more than anyone else cumulatively throughout history. But to say that being done wrong to is impetus for the 'returning of their traditional homelands' is a little chauvinistic.

      But to now claim that Palestinians need to have their homeland returned to them is just as chauvinistic and just as wrong as the creation of Israel. The UN should have just kept its nose out of this mess, IMO, and is wholly responsible for the current mayhem that exists over there today.

      Of course, if the state of Israel had never been created there may still be mayhem in that region. However, that is still just a 'what if'. Tangibly, the UN created the country, tromped over the people who lived there, created an artificial state and supplied it with enough armament to fight off anyone who dared attack.

      A little non-interference at that time would have been a good thing, IMO.

    6. Re:It shouldn't amaze you. by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1
      Actually, this discussion is rather silly. Jewish-Muslim relations have been strained, yes, and they have been strained by both sides. However, I will reminder you that Mohammed and the Koran clearly state that other religions were to be respected and tolerated. For centuries the Muslims openly welcomed Jews and Christians into the Middle East so they could make pilgramages to the Holy Land.

      Frankly, continually placing blame on one group or another isn't going to lead to a wortyhy conclusion - just further violence.

      Mistakes were made in the past, it's behind us. I would suggest learning from them and not making those same mistakes in the future.

      Perhaps we will learn from the mistakes of the current administration and the dangerous way they're conducting themselves: a raid on a hosting provider, boycotting racial relations talks, and making biased statements in public is not the way the President (and his administration) of the only super power should be directing relations.

      Again, as long as you act like themm, they'll love you.

    7. Re:It shouldn't amaze you. by Apuleius · · Score: 1

      Okay, then, I don't have much to disagree with
      you, then, except this: the UN did not create
      Israel. The UN took a vote and made some speeches.
      A bunch of ornery Jews in the Mideast created
      Israel.

    8. Re:It shouldn't amaze you. by Apuleius · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Koran says Jews and Christians should be tolerated. So what? Do you think Muslims always follow the Kuran? The history is a mixed bag, and Muslim-Jewish relations are strained largely because Muslims are having trouble adjusting to relations in which Jews see themselves as equal. That remains to be addressed.

    9. Re:It shouldn't amaze you. by Eagle7 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit... Isreal was created as a result of the UN/US/England as a refuge for Jews after WWII.

      To think that a bunch of "orny Jews" could have possibly carved themselves a space of thier own in the Middle East without International support is just silly. Get off your damned over zealous, one-sided high horse and go read some non-biased (in as much as such a thing exists) history.

      --
      _sig_ is away
    10. Re:It shouldn't amaze you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To think that a bunch of "orny Jews" could have possibly carved themselves a space of thier own in the Middle East without International support is just silly. Get off your damned over zealous, one-sided high horse and go read some non-biased (in as much as such a thing exists) history.

      Do you have any idea how childish that sounds? Name-calling. Ha!

      To me this whole jews-muslim-palestinian discussion is ridiculous. The whole middle-east is a collection of little children all crying because somebody stole their toy. And since they've all stolen each other's toy it adds up to a perfect equilibrium. Not that any of them realise it.

      There are too much other problems in the world for this whole religious nonsense. The fact that we live on a planet that can support 15 billion and barely supports 4 billion nowadays (with 2 billion below the poverty line and dying of hunger) and that there are still people out there who choose to hold silly discussions about whose toy belongs to who makes me incredibly furious.

      Feed the hungry, nurse the sick, provide everyone with a source of income. Until that's done all the current political and religious hot topics should be suspended.

    11. Re:It shouldn't amaze you. by fitsy · · Score: 1

      Not factually correct in places:

      Britain was in control of Palestine at the time, The Arabs wanted no Jewish state and The Isrealis wanted no Palestine. Britain got frustrated with the matter and passed on responsibility to the UN. Israel eventually invaded Lebanon with the objective of "eliminating the PLO", while most Palestinians were displaced to Jordan and neighbouring states and some stayed.

      Hard right Jews started settlements in places where the palestinians had left and continued to do so, in flagrant violation of International laws stipulation that land conquered under war cannot be confiscated.

      Read the UN documents on "the question of palestine" and inform yourself.

      http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF

    12. Re:It shouldn't amaze you. by denshi · · Score: 2
      I saw a fantastic film last year about youth in Lebanon (Beirut). I forget the name. The killer line was when one elderly Arab said something to the effect of 'the Arabs used to be a great and learned people. What happened to us.' This while standing in the ruins of Beirut (thank you, Israel and Syria).

      Much as you keep bringing up the Sharia, I do not think that is a complete answer. The last thousand years has seen a thorough collapse of Arab culture. Laws and traditions formed at the height of Arab civilization no longer serve, nor are they even well implemented. Add all the oil wealth, and you have a familiar pattern of a sadly uneducated redneck culture that has just recently come into a great deal of prestige and power -- a sure receipe for screwing a place up. These disputes aren't the result of any coherent religious position, just the old, sad inevitabilities of ignorant hate in rapidly changing cultures.

      OTOH, the Israelis could stop, you know, killing a dozen Arabs in retaliation for each Israeli death. That's certainly no way to make friends.

  43. Re:No Need to Go Nuts About This Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? I found some old maps, one of them labelled the whole area the 'Ottoman Empire', another one had that area as part of the 'Roman Empire'. So I kept looking and found another one with the area being called 'Canaan'. The only references to the area being called Palestine are as a label for the British mandate of the area.

  44. good question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least I had the dignity to post anonymously

  45. Supporting Evidence by none2222 · · Score: 1
    Since my original post was immediately modded to -1 by biased moderators, I thought I'd post again to provide some links to further information.


    Israel/Occupied Territories: Israel shows reckless disregard for human life


    ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: UNITED NATIONS CALLS FOR HALT TO TORTURE


    CAT: ISRAEL CONTINUES TO DEFY THE COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE


    ISRAEL: Human Rights Abuses Affecting Trafficked Women in Isreal's Sex Industry


    An article on slave trafficking in Israel, from the Jerusalem Post


    Google search results for "human rights" + israel" (have reading the 281,000 results)


    If zionist moderators once again try to silence me, well, I tried.


    I could speculate endlessly about why the US is so intent on supporting Israel, and why the US ignores Israeli human rights abuses that would shame even North Korea. But, I really don't know. I am truly puzzled.

    --
    If you have a problem with my views, REPLY, don't moderate!
    1. Re:Supporting Evidence by Alien54 · · Score: 2
      Since my original post was immediately modded to -1 by biased moderators, I thought I'd post again to provide some links to further information.

      Radio Free Nation had a quick story on this about lunch time.

      Since they are a political site, they may be more appropriate for this sort of discussion.

      They may even welcome an article if you put something up that is well thought out and coherantly argued.

      - - -
      Radio Free Nation
      an alternate news site using Slash Code
      "If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    2. Re:Supporting Evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try this: ain't no such thing as "human rights". That's neocom drool. All rights are social contract rights and they stop at the "border" ... as for the border, that's determined by who stacks bodies the highest. No right, no wrong just power relations between countries/cultures/tribes ... whatever the name ... Always has been, always will. Now --- what don't you understand???

    3. Re:Supporting Evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      je
      they should just shut down the internet
      and start up simon-wiesenthal-net instead.

      /DETHCRUSH
      (spreading antisemitism 2001!)

  46. Has anyone else noticed an anti-muslim bias in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the rating system on slashdot? Reading comments with scores 3 and up all have a more negative tone towards muslims, yet the more positive ones are modded down to -1 and labeled flamebait. Why is this? I have seen this in the past and have yet to comment on it.

    It is sad that that people who I would read this site are more educational sound (or so i assume) yet there is a very prejudice and propagandic (is that a word?) tone to comments.

  47. bah! by Pope · · Score: 1

    After reading Robert Anton Wilson's "Illuminatus!" and subsequent sequels, I don't believe in any one world-dominating conspiracy.
    And it certainly can't be read stone, because it's enough of a mind-fuck as it is.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    1. Re:bah! by kubrick · · Score: 1

      After reading Robert Anton Wilson's "Illuminatus!" and subsequent sequels, I don't believe in any one world-dominating conspiracy.

      After reading Illuminatus! and sequels, I know that *all* of the conspiracies are true. Remember, truth is stranger than fiction...

      :)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  48. Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande by TWR · · Score: 2
    As others have pointed out, the name of the site is HinduUnity.org. Visit their web site if you want details. If you want to read the whole article, you can do a search for HinduUnity on the New York Times web site. It'll cost you to read it, though, as it was published over a month ago. Like I said, no outcry from the Slashdot free speech squad.


    I'm not a Hindu and some what HinduUnity.org preaches scares the heck out of me. But it shouldn't be forced off its ISP by crybabies. I just can't stand the hypocritical posturing.


    -jon

    --

    Remember Amalek.

  49. far from a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's dead on, whether you want to admit it or not.
    Microsoft's never getting broken up, VA Linux is selling proprietary software, Mozilla's falling to pieces, deal with it.

  50. Sick of Jew-hatred by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 0
    Go to hell, you filthy Jew-hating scumbags. I know this is off topic, but I really don't care. The truth is the arabs who are living in Israel enjoy a much higher standard of life than any of their cousins in the neighboring arab empires. The arabs living in Israel enjoy the economic benefits of the nation, and yet they (as in the vast, vast majority) spout anti-Israel Jew-hatred, and they support every act of arab terror. Arabs living in Israel enjoy the right to vote as well. Israel bans and jails any individual who advocates throwing the hostile arabs out, yet they do nothing when arabs elected to parliament openly call for the destruction of the Jewish state.

    And it is, eternally a Jewish state, promised by G-d to the Jewish people. And no, the arabs have never had any significant presence in Israel. The nation of Israel was created in 1312 BCE and thrived until it was conquered by the Romans in 70 CE. To disgrace the Jews further, the Romans renamed the region "Palestine" in commemoration of the Helenized Philistian people. Then, the arabs conquered the land in 632 CE. However, they never really took any interest in the land, because it was really nothing to them. (Remember, the 6th century CE Koran never once mentions Jerusalem, yet it mentions Mecha and Medina hundreds of times.) There was never any establishment of any entity political entity named Palestine. There was never a king, potentate or governor of the region. It was so sparsely populated that when Mark Twain visited Israel, he stated that one could look across the desert and not see a single soul. However, there was always a Jewish presence in the land, which grew increasingly greater in the 20th Century.

    Finally, with the recreation of Israel in 1948, the Jewish people had reclaimed their biblical and traditional homeland. Israel offered the tiny arab population of 400,000 a plan in which they would get half of Israel. They rejected that and chose to flee in the hopes that they would be back with conquering arab armies. The armies of their most powerful nations came, yet a miracle took place when a heavily outnumbered and outgunned Israeli army fought all of them off.

    Only with the 1967 war, in which Israel again repelled overwhelming arab force, was there ever talk of "Palestine." The modern term was the brain child of Yasser Arafat, who has worked ever since with the goal to destroy the Jewish state. In 1993, Israel signed a peace accord in which Araft declared that the arabs would no longer use violence to accomplish their goals, yet terrorism against Israel is at its highest levels seen in two decades.

    I'm really not writing to you Jew-haters, I am writing those of you who aren't informed, so that you perhaps you won't buy into the lie as well.

    --
    Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
    1. Re:Sick of Jew-hatred by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      > And it is, eternally a Jewish state, promised by
      > G-d to the Jewish people.

      Why does God get such a boner for that little plot of land, anyway? There are plenty of farms in this country larger than that. You're talking city-state sized areas of land.

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    2. Re:Sick of Jew-hatred by Arkaengel · · Score: 1

      Fact is, Israel's the closest thing to a fascist regime there is in the western world. During the apartheid era, the South African government imposed the same measures (curfews, shoot-to-maim orders, etc.) on black townships, and there was an entirely justified outcry. The government of Israel is on very shaky ground here.

      It's interesting how anyone criticising Israeli politics is automatically an anti-Semite, btw. I suppose it's easier to make a straw man attack on the messenger than deal with the message.

  51. FBI == Federal Bureau of Investigations by S.+Allen · · Score: 1

    not state, Federal. it happened in Texas like Waco, but who took the heat for that one? so, yes, the Bush administration is ultimately to blame. this is another, in a long series of blunders that are setting us up for some ugly international repercussions.

  52. The Hacker Crackdown by sammy+baby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For all kinds of great info on this topic, read The Hacker Crackdown, by Bruce Sterling. The entire text is available on the web all sorts of places. Like here, for instance. It's an excellent book.

  53. I think you need to be informed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "reclaimed their biblical and traditional homeland"... bullshit? That's the best word I can come up with. Under your reasoning, I should let the Native American wage a war with F16's, machine guns and reclaim the land that was traditionally and historically theirs. Just cause some philosophical books says its their doesn't mean jack to me. They (the israeli's) took the land through many wars. Is that okay? The Qur'an doesn't mention Jersualem? Boy, are you misinformed. Muslims faced Jerusalem before they started to face mecca when praying. Any informed person can tell you that. What about Israel's constant military bombardment of Lebanon? Is that their land too?

    I won't sit here to argue your points cause you have already proven you don't know squat about what you are talking about. It is fools like you that are keeping the world in its current state of turmoil. Quit fighting over a stupid book some idiot wrote. If in 623 CE no one was their and Twain backed it up, then its been "arab" land since then. Isreal coming in 1948 to reclaim a land it hadn't been in during 623 CE sounds ridiculous to me. Have a nice day.

    1. Re:I think you need to be informed... by uriyan · · Score: 1

      It might be interesting for you to mark that the population we call Palestinian has come to israel in the second half of the 19th century, about the same time as the Jews did. Before that, Palestine was a very sparesly populated land. Of little worth, but for its holy sites.

      As an Israeli, I find no use for bigotry regarding religion. Israel beleives in freedom of religion (for example, Muslim Sharia' courthouses are equal in their right to the Jewish Rabinnical courthouses in Israel), and therefore if Arabs beleive Jerusalem is holy for them, they are welcome to come there. As a side note, such courtesy was not given by the Jordanians to the Jews who had wanted to come to the Western Wall in the years 1948-1967.

      The Palestinians abuse many of the world's news sources to put through a line of extremist propaganda. Of course, its antisemitic nature is by itself wrong; however the main problem is in the violence they incite. I do not consider them much different from the KKK so far as either style or content is concerned. I don't think there should be room for such media in Israel, the US or any other country which understands the danger in propaganda of violence.

    2. Re:I think you need to be informed... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      An israeli to talk of propoganda by violence, should be a well repsected authority on the source! I'm not an anti-semite by the way I'm anti-israel particularily in the face of the current fighting. Rocks and suicide bombers versus F-16's and Tanks, shame on you. Call people things like nazis, KKK, and whatever your little heart of hate desires, but don't expect people to listen when you are no longer oppressed and are instead the oppressor.

  54. Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sigh.. i'm sad.. clearly those people at
    HinduUnity.org clearly never bothered to read the
    Hindu sacred literatures..
    i'm thinking here of the MahaBhaarata, the Ramayana, and the Veda's (among others) ..
    but i'm not surprised..
    you can say the same of any religion, the words
    may sound good, and the scriptures always say , be nice to your neighbors, don't be an asshole, etc..
    but no one ever practices what they preach ..

    if i were Hindu (and not an agnostic) i'd be sad..
    but then, i was born Hindu .. don't even get me started on Hindu class-based discrimination (i'm a Brahmin by birth, so in that i'd have been semi-fortunate if i grew up in India)

    --vat

  55. Re:PLEASE SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE GNUHAIKU!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zionist Jews kill thousands of Palestinians, robed, committed genocide, broke every human rights law there is, over twenty UN resolutions, bomb civilians, commit atrocities upon civilians. The same Zionist terrorist steal over 30 billion of US foreign aid, and they own ur American ass, while Americans complain about money for schools, homeless, poverty, the Zionist lobby takes it and send it to terrorist extremist Jews in occupied Palestine. Palestinian Arabs had lived for over 1400 years in peace with every one in their country, there are peace full people the are defending their lives, land, in war against by Zionist Jews. Finally don't fucking use the word GNU in any of ur fucking racist comments.

  56. Actually, historically speaking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jews flourished in Muslim countries because Muslim law (sharia) states that you can't force people to convert and you must let them practice peacefully. For those years, Jews were not pushed out or victimized like they were in Europe during the ear of WW2.

    Check your facts, and quit spreading misinformed propoganda. Are you a Muslim scholar? A historical scholar on the region? I sure know you better answer "no" to both cause you don't know what you are talking about.

    1. Re:Actually, historically speaking... by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      Isn't it ironic? when Muslim countries were open minded they were dominating the world. Of course, then muslim extremists took the power and with a blink of an eye everything changed.

  57. Why is it that... by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

    An 80-strong U.S. FBI agents raided the Texas-based host of Arabic Web sites, including that of the Arab world's leading independent news channel, prompting charges on Thursday of an 'anti-Muslim witchhunt.'

    Why is it that every time the government does something bad to (e.g. raids) something that is owned primarily by minorities (e.g. Muslims), the victims cry racism? I'd be ignorant to think that it doesn't happen at all, but this is just plain ridiculous. It seems to me that they are just looking for a scapegoat -- the FBI didn't raid us because of our [p0rn || warez || etc.], they raided us because of our [race || religion || etc.]! Give me a break. IMO people like this need to grow up and realize that not everything bad that happens to them is because of their minority status.

    --

    I pledge allegiance to the flag...
    of the Corporate States of America...
    1. Re:Why is it that... by dangermouse · · Score: 2
      Note that you immediately assumed that the raid was probably conducted because of the target's "[p0rn || warez || etc.]" and not because of their "[race || religion || etc.]".

      You also immediately drew a connection between the people involved here and some you've apparently heard about elsewhere who "cry racism" unjustly and on a regular basis.

      My point is that you've hardly shown yourself to be above the sort of instant-conclusion reaction that you attribute to the people involved here.

      Also, considering the United States government is (right now) boycotting the UN's World Conference Against Racism, it's not an entirely unreasonable charge to level against said government at the moment.

      I suspect a bit more research is in order before anyone draws any further conclusions here.

    2. Re:Why is it that... by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

      Also, considering the United States government is (right now) boycotting the UN's World Conference Against Racism, it's not an entirely unreasonable charge to level against said government at the moment

      There's a reason why they're boycotting that though. As you may have heard, this convention denounces Israel as a racist state (I don't remember the specifics, but that's the main part of it). The US representatives do not agree with this, and they feel strongly enough about the issue that they are willing to boycott the convention. Some other countries are boycotting the convention too because of this, IIRC. I don't know a whole lot about Israel, but I've heard much worse about other countries as far as how they treat outsiders.

      Note that you immediately assumed that the raid was probably conducted because of the target's "[p0rn || warez || etc.]" and not because of their "[race || religion || etc.]

      Point taken. But the FBI doesn't just choose who to raid at random...do they? *Something* had to have been going on there to get the FBI's attention. As you said, more research is in order here.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    3. Re:Why is it that... by LordNimon · · Score: 2

      I can assure you that if the conference had labelled any of the Arab countries as a "racist, apartheid state", the U.S. would not have walked out.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    4. Re:Why is it that... by Rupert · · Score: 2

      Where you are allowed to live in Israel depends on whether you are palestinian or not. Sounds like institutional racism to me.

      Personally I think the US should stop mailing checks to Israel until they sort the whole thing out. Give them a bit of incentive.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    5. Re:Why is it that... by dangermouse · · Score: 2
      There's a reason why they're boycotting that though. As you may have heard, this convention denounces Israel as a racist state (I don't remember the specifics, but that's the main part of it). The US representatives do not agree with this, and they feel strongly enough about the issue that they are willing to boycott the convention.


      That's not entirely true. This conference recognizes a problem of racism in Israel, and would like to work toward a solution. The language has become increasingly mild and conciliatory toward Israel as the preparations and the conference itself have gone on. In point of fact, the United States walked out before Israel did!


      There is also a very large contingent at the conference (including an African bloc and many US NGOs) who believe that the U.S. is using the Israel/Palestine issue as a smokescreen because it doesn't want to discuss the possibility of declaring the trans-Atlantic slave trade to have been a crime against humanity, and is avoiding the issue of reparations for said crime altogether.


      Europe and Africa seem to have been squaring off on that issue, but none of those countries boycotted the WCAR.

  58. Everything is relative. by Apuleius · · Score: 1

    Jews in Muslim lands fared better than those in Europe, until the 1700's, when the tables turned in the other direction. Not that this is all that relevant. Jews were still third-class citizens in the Muslim lands the entire time, and in the year 2001 no Jew will settle for anything short of full equality.

    As for my facts, yes, I am a scholar of Mideast history and Jewish history.

    1. Re:Everything is relative. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Really? "A lapsed graduate student" from MIT should be considered an expert?

      Do you blow this hard all the time, or only when you're asking for a reaming?

    2. Re:Everything is relative. by Apuleius · · Score: 1

      Ya habibi, do you dispute any of
      my assertions of fact? Have you read
      the sources I could refer you to?

  59. Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen bro, you have many points that can you said in much less offensive ways. When you post with this name, you automatically put a block up in people's minds and they attack you instead of listening to you. Why don't you try a different approach.

  60. unfortunately for peaceful people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    the constitution applies to hateful bigotted and closed minded scum as well. The FBI can no more go in and shut down those sites anymore than it should be allowed shut down sites that teach peace and harmony, simply because peace and harmony go against the US government's mentality.

    I do however, wish that Muslims would police themselves. Regardless of what religion, it is hypocritical and paradoxical when zealots wish to crush all those who think different, but in the name of religions head philosopher, deity or presence who they claim stand for love and peace. If you are a muslim and you believe it is ok to force your view on others, to kill those who choose a different (or none) religion than you, then you need to reanalyze your existence and your place in the universe. If you raise your fists in rage against some other group that you claim is closed minded and only wishes to further their own religious agenda and not allow others to practice their own beliefs, yet then turn around and support those who advocate a religious government or leaders/policies/laws that forbid anyone from practicing a non Islam religion, then you my friend are your own worst enemy.

    Hmmph, I really don't get all this crap anyway... seems to me that those who make belief a law, are afraid of themselves and their own lack of faith. Faith moves mountains, but many seem more bent on destroying any outside thought, while under the banner and chant of 'freedom and tolerence'. Stop they hypocricy and stupidity please.

    1. Re:unfortunately for peaceful people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forcing your views isn't a muslim-only thing. America does it all the time. Do i need to list examples? I hope you are thinking clear enough to realize what you are saying. Jews are furthering their own religion by advocating extermination of all arabs in the region. Can we talk about them too?

      In a recent UN conference on Racism in South Africa, most all of the 166 nations supported the statement that what israel is doing is racist. But how is that we in america are so blind to always take sides against the muslim "savages". Give it a rest, we aren't in the crusades era, so stop thinking like that.

    2. Re:unfortunately for peaceful people by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      > the constitution applies to hateful bigotted and closed minded scum as well.

      Not necessarily. Evidently kidnapping someone, raping them, and sawing off their head while they're still alive is much worse if you hate them racially than if you do it to steal $5.00 from them.

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
  61. Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande by ayden · · Score: 1

    Did you ever bother to post this news? This is the first I've heard of it.

    --
    "I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
  62. wake up sunshine by JDizzy · · Score: 1

    Yeah I live in Dalls, and I woke up to see that story in the morning... was sorta werid cuz hearing the line "FBI anti-terror squad raids local ISP." Um'yeah.......... in my pre-congnitive morning trace leads me to imagine all sorta of clock'n'dager situations... Some suspected person who's bothers friends is a terrorist named kiezer Souse anonymously posts commands to a legion of suicide Jihad-freaks. Zing... I'm awake now!! Serriously, that sabout how it went down, at least for me.

    --
    It isn't a lie if you belive it.
  63. Try to stay on-topic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kill those fucking JEWS! That's always on-topic.

  64. There is bias here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Z.O.G. (Zionist Occupation Government) forces shut down these sites because they were broadcasting the truth about Jewish influence in Amerikkka.

    1. Re:There is bias here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we Jews really own everything, then where's my cut?

    2. Re:There is bias here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If we Jews really own everything, then where's my cunt?

      It's between your legs, you stupid Jew whore. Now stop raping our politicians and start baking some Matzoh.

    3. Re:There is bias here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the FBI executed a search warrant to make sure there aren't terrorists there that could bomb, nuke, poison, or infect American civilians.

      How would you like it if your mother/father/daughter/son got killed by a terrorist?

      I don't trust a lot about our government, and I think they need to be watched.

      But I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt now.

      Posting as AC because posting the truth would cost me karma otherwise. Censorship at work, eh?

    4. Re:There is bias here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has got to be the coolest retort to a racist comment I have seen in ages!

    5. Re:There is bias here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a great retort: Call someone a "stupid Jew whore". Can someone please turn the "slashdot ignorant dumb-ass filter" on so we don't have to read this kind of KKK crap?!

    6. Re:There is bias here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with that dumb ass?

      Trying to imply that there was something incorrect in that statement?

      You need education, read your history books on what the Jews got.

    7. Re:There is bias here... by No+One · · Score: 1

      No the FBI executed a search warrant to make sure there aren't terrorists there that could bomb, nuke, poison, or infect American civilians.

      I think you're right on that. However, that shouldn't be sufficient reason to get a search warrant. "...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Remember that little annoyance for law enforcement known as the 4th Amendment? From what I read, this sounds more like what you described, rather than a search based on probable cause of illegal activity, which is the standard law enforcement is supposed to follow. In addition, it sounds more like a fishing expedition than anything else.

      Isn't in great to know anyone can suspend your constitutional rights by calling you a terrorist?

      How would you like it if your mother/father/daughter/son got killed by a terrorist?

      I'd be damned unhappy. But that is extremely unlikely, while the trampling of our rights by law enforcement--justified by fear-mongering drivel like what you just posted--is an absolute certainty right now. I don't feel like trading my rights away to give you a false sense of security. Because it would be false. If a terrorist wants to find a way to blow up your apartment building, they will, no matter what kind of draconian powers you give the police.

      But I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt now.

      Why? The federal law enforcement authorities have a history of abusing their authority and trampling our rights that's lasted over a century. Why would you be foolish enough to give them the benifit of the doubt? They've proved repeatedly they don't deserve it. If they want us to operate under the assumption that they're worthy of trust in any way, they've got to prove it. Given their repeated, constant abuses in the past, they've got their work cut out for them at this point.

      Posting as AC because posting the truth would cost me karma otherwise. Censorship at work, eh?

      Oh, bullshit. Despite having no real arguments in your post, you woulda been at least 3, Insightful and you know it. Do you have any idea how OLD whining about this mythical Slashdot censorship is? Besides, you're supposed to be logged in when you kwhore that way.

      --

      There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
    8. Re:There is bias here... by itachi · · Score: 1

      Ask a Palestinian how it feels. I swear, if the world doesn't go after certain members of the Israeli govt. for war crimes, it'll be all the biggots will need to forever win arguments about Jews having too much power/influence/whatnot. Karma be damned, the fact the the world is letting this crap happen is really getting to me.

      itachi

  65. Re:PLEASE SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE GNUHAIKU!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish there was a button that I could push to wipe out the complete "upper asia" camel jokey holy land. There is no room for people who can't keep thier racist, facist wars contained withing the four borders of a web browser...

    damn them. damn them all the hell (or nervana, or what ever the heck it is over there!!!)

  66. Get a life by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2
    Slashdot self-hate is getting really tedious. Why the hell would anyone mod up this pointless comment? It's like all the fucking comments that just say "of course, ignorant slashdotters will mod this down, but I'll say it anyway." As though baseless self-critique is somehow a purifying influence, or puts you people above the Masses.

    It's disturbing that not only do so many commenters have a negative opinion of slashdot, but moderators think empty criticisms like this are actually worth points. If you have criticism that isn't just glib, go ahead, but otherwise if you don't like it just go the fuck away or keep it to yourself. And please don't encourage this shit by moding it up!

    I usually don't swear, and I usually don't like the "if you don't like it, go away" response, but the pretentions of these sorts of posts piss me off. They remind me of high school and the all the idiots who thought they were cool because they insulted everything and everyone.

  67. Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande by slamb · · Score: 2

    I'm not a Hindu and some what HinduUnity.org preaches scares the heck out of me. But it shouldn't be forced off its ISP by crybabies

    "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." - A.J. Liebling.

    As I understand it, the supreme court has pretty much ruled consistently with this quote. If you own a press, you can say anything that isn't libelous or obscene. If you don't own a press, you are guaranteed nothing. No one is required to help you say what you want. [*]

    So, yes, sites like HinduUnity.org should be forced off their ISPs. They have a constitutional right to say what they want, but no one is required to provide them a forum to spread their hatred.

    [*] - I believe there is an exception for "common carriers" - basically if you are the only game in town. This would be a huge backbone provider, not a small ISP. It wouldn't apply here.

    (Keep in mind, the legal details here are all from memory. If someone has an authoritative link, please post it.)

  68. Anti Muslim withch hunt? by the_other_one · · Score: 1

    Of course the US has been on an anti muslim witch hunt ever since the establishment of the DOF

    --
    134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
  69. Way to go!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if only they could do something about the negros and those pesky hebrews...

  70. That wasn't me that replied earlier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Third class citizen's? Can we get a sourse please? I'd appreciate it.

    1. Re:That wasn't me that replied earlier... by Apuleius · · Score: 1

      dhimmi.com is a good start.

    2. Re:That wasn't me that replied earlier... by Eagle7 · · Score: 2

      Right... an organization called "Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights", that in its declaration mentions only Islamic radicals and Jihads. That's about as decieving as the name Holy Land Foundation.

      Why don't you 1) examine the facts yourself (from a relatively impartial news organization like NPR), 2) go to the library and find some history books, prefereably by Jewish, Arab, and non-biased historians, and read them all to discern the true facts, and 3) if you reference organizations, reference non-biased, egalitarian ones like Amnesty.

      Someone who considers a website like dhimmi.com a good place to start becoming knowledgable in these matters is a far cry from being a "scholar" or Jewish (or any other) history.

      --
      _sig_ is away
  71. This is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The majority of muslims are terrorists, so the FBI's actions are perfectly justified. Just looking at all the bombs and fighting in Israel will verify this fact.

    Thanks.

    1. Re:This is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your statement "majority of muslims are terrorists" is bigotted.

  72. My response. by Apuleius · · Score: 1

    Israel discriminates against minorities. I'm Israeli, but I'm not two-faced enough to say otherwise. Arabs in Israel have fewer opportunities than Jews. But guess what:



    Syria, our neighbor to the north, has a law requiring Syrian Jews to stay within their home towns at all times. There are old Jews in Damascus who have not left the city in their entire lives. How's that for discrimination?



    Or, let's turn our gaze to Egypt. Nasser, many years ago, confiscated properties from many groups of people, mainly the Jews, Greeks, Copts and Maltese, but also rich Muslim Egyptians. Of those four groups, guess which one is not eligible for restoration of the confiscated properties, nor for compensation. You get one guess.



    Let's hop one over, to Lybia, where in his first year in power, Khadaffi confiscated the homes of all the Jews, but forbade them from leaving. Italian arm twisting prevented this spectacle from continuing. They were shipped to Sicily, hence to Israel. Lybia is now Jew-free.



    This is just the tip of the iceberg of racism in the Arab World. Israel is angelic in comparison.

    1. Re:My response. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      This is just the tip of the iceberg of racism in the Arab World. Israel is angelic in comparison.
      Which is rather like being the nicest ax-murderer on the block.
      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  73. Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this were a jewish newspaper, the US government would've compensated about $2 million for damages as well as apologized sincerely to the jewish community for any damages.. but whatever.

  74. get FBI to shut down a real texas terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Question is, how can we get the FBI to shut down one of the internet's biggest webhosting terrorists ... taking hostage unknowing webmasters in search of a deal ... only to have their databases stabbed through the heart in the middle of the night ... and their loved-ones spam-bombed into oblivion

    Question is, how can we get the FBI to shut down the Texas based CIHost ?

    1. Re:get FBI to shut down a real texas terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple.

      Have the owner learn Arabic, convert to Islam, attend a local mosque regularly and sooner or later, the FBI will raid their offices.

      Of course, if he converts to Islam, it's likely he will stop any spamming or other bad business practices.

  75. Re:PLEASE SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE GNUHAIKU!!! by Panaflex · · Score: 2

    How can it be racist if both sides are hateful of the other. More like mutual hate.

    1. I find it hard to live next to anybody that would publically tell children on freaking SESAME STREET to go and kill me.

    2. If I were palistenian, I would refuse to work for jews that looked upon me as inferior and shuffled my family about like cattle.

    In other words, I find no one in the middle east has any brains at all.

    We all know various histories of the areas. There is no excuse for any of it. Both peoples have a fervent hate that is based on intolerance.

    Tolerance is the core of freedom. The middle east will never be free until people learn to accept each other.. NO POLITICAL SOLUTION IS POSSIBLE. I do not mean that palestinians need to go to temple, and vice versa. I mean that people are free to practice their religion next door. Whether you like them or not.

    Who wins the spiritual battle? Certainly not Allah or God.

    Panaflex

    --
    I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
  76. Get out of Constitution free card. by lostchicken · · Score: 1

    It has been the war on drugs.
    Now it's anti-terrorism.

    Day by day we give up our rights. Freedom of speech is okay, except when it may anger someone, or make them sniff something that will kill them. You have protection against unreasonable search and seizure, unless you violate the above restrictions on what you can say, and then you can be violated and robbed if the government wants to.

    --
    -twb
  77. They also ran the IQ (Iraq) TLD by Skapare · · Score: 2

    They also ran the IQ (Iraq) TLD as seen here. The day of the RAID, the DNS went down on the primary server. It appears to be back up now.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:They also ran the IQ (Iraq) TLD by infocom · · Score: 1


      This is not true. There is absolutely no .iq domain name registration service.

  78. cry cry i'm a baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish someone would shut down slashdot for a few hours. This bad reporting makes me sick. boo hoo big bad FBI.. they obviously were doing something they shouldn't have been, people don't get ransacked with out explanation in this country, it'll come out when its time, then all of you will be like oops, or even not pay attention because something else provoked your interest to poopoo for a while. slashcrap slashcrap

  79. What an odd choice of links by Microsift · · Score: 1

    The iviews site seems like a strange choice, if you dig deeper on the site, it is clearly anti-Israeli. Its there right to be anti-Israeli, but when they let their bias spread to their news, its ceases to be news and becomes merely commentary. Certainly there were better sources that could have been referenced(the person who actually posted it found one). Next time wait for someone who is not biased to submit the story with links to legitimate news sites.

    --
    My other sig is extremely clever...
  80. Holy Freak ... by Dlugar · · Score: 1

    From the Yahoo article ...

    FBI spokeswoman Lori Bailey said the investigation was not aimed at InfoCom's clients, but she declined to say why authorities targeted the company. [...]
    Agents took boxes out of the building Wednesday and Thursday but did not say what was contained in them. [...]
    "This is a criminal investigation, not a political investigation," she said. "We're hoping to find evidence of criminal activity."

    We're hoping to find evidence of criminal activity? WTF? Is a mere hope all it takes the FBI to get a freaking search warrant these days to carry things out in boxes?!

    Be afraid ... be very afraid.


    Dlugar
    --
    Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
    1. Re:Holy Freak ... by COAngler · · Score: 1
      We're hoping to find evidence of criminal activity? WTF? Is a mere hope all it takes the FBI to get a freaking search warrant these days to carry things out in boxes?!



      No, that's just the way police PIO's talk.



      "Criminal evidence" is items, documents, statements, etc., which would tend to prove or disprove a fact in a criminal matter.



      What our dear agent was saying was basically, "We conducted our search and seized the items defined in our warrant. Now we intend to examine them to determine their probative value in court. We hope they will shed light on the matter before us."



      And the agents needed the same standard of proof that cops in the US have needed for two centuries or so now: Probable cause to believe that items would be present which constitute evidence of a crime.



      FWIW, you don't need to have a suspect in order to get a search warrant. All you need is the probable cause to believe the evidence exists and is in a particular place, in an affidavit, given to a judge for his signature.



      And yes, they carried them out in boxes. Would you prefer that they carried the items out in a stolen handbag?

  81. Interesting ... by Dlugar · · Score: 1
    The government believes Infocom has ties to the Holy Land Foundation, which is located across the street. The U.S. government has been investigating the Holy Land Foundation for some time, believing that it has ties to Hamas, a Palestinian organization which engages in terrorist activities against Israel.

    Ok, so the government believes that the Holy Land Foundation has "ties" to an organization which engages in terrorist activities ... not exactly the biggest reason to shut down people ... but they go after the ISP across the street!?!?! Have they lost their mind, or is there some sort of huge thing that all (six or so that I've read) these news stories have left out?

    Bizarre. Truly bizarre.
    And frightening.


    Dlugar
    --
    Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
    1. Re:Interesting ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You`re frightened that the police may want to see the email correspondance of a group involved in terrorism? Yeah, i`m terrified.

  82. Re:What amazes me... (OT: Nazi republicans) by MrT · · Score: 1

    How about the Bush family's extensive holdings in IG Farben and the other companies that manufactured weapons such as poison gas for the Third Reich?

    http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve3/1033bush.html

  83. ARYAN SUPERMAN - FAT WIMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah yeah ralph youre no superman your a wimp and wont even face this jew - some superman you are

    FUCK OFF YOUR CRAP IS NOT WELCOME HERE

  84. Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande by TWR · · Score: 2
    So, yes, sites like HinduUnity.org should be forced off their ISPs. They have a constitutional right to say what they want, but no one is required to provide them a forum to spread their hatred.


    Legally, you are absolutely correct. I'm talking morally, though.


    HinduUnity's words condemn them. Muslim groups that want to shut them down, and force them off of their servers provide evidence for their paranoia. It also drew a lot more attention to them.


    Leaving them alone would have been best, but these idjits just couldn't _stand_ to have something somewhere that they found offensive. Substitute "porn" or "Howard Stern" or "neo-Nazi" or whatever for "Hindu Unity" and you'll get the idea.


    Like I said, people piss and moan when something happens to a site they agree with but shrug their shoulders when it is something they don't agree with. Well I'm pissing and moaning even when I don't agree with it. And I don't think taking a bunch of sites down for a few hours while the FBI collects evidence is nearly as big of a deal as mob action against unpopular opinions. But that's just me.


    -jon

    --

    Remember Amalek.

  85. Re:stop picking on the jews, ralph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck both you, the Nazis lost. (if they had not given up by August 1945, the US would have used atomic bombs based on a Jew's theories to blow them away).

  86. Grand Jury seeks records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A grand jury has supeanoed records.. full details are here .

  87. Child pornography? by coyote-san · · Score: 2

    Since the warrant is sealed, we shouldn't be too quick to jump to the conclusion that the raid is somehow directed at the Muslim clients. If it is, we can be outraged when the truth comes out. If it is not, we're just reinforcing the stereotype that Muslims are somehow always doing things shady enough to warrant 80-some FBI agents at a time. Few people will learn or remember that this was a false alarm.

    Consider another possibility: wasn't that recent big kiddie porn case also based in Texas? It's hardly unreasonable to ask if this might be that site reborn. It would certainly explain the agents keeping quiet, especially if they're actively monitoring attempts to connect to that site since they took control.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    1. Re:Child pornography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Child porn...
      Somebody had to say it....

      Aren't all the "anti-internet / anti-crypto" laws brought in to combat terrorists and pedophiles?
      The governments do it in our best interests you know.

    2. Re:Child pornography? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • Since the warrant is sealed, we shouldn't be too quick to jump to the conclusion that the raid is somehow directed at the Muslim clients

      Since the warrant is sealed, and there is no transparency or (immediate) accountability, we should (IMHO) assume the worst. Remember, this is the FBI, an agency that boasts about its ability to lie and socially engineer. Also, why does it take 80 agents to shut down a hosting shop? What were they expecting, "You can have my root password when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers"?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:Child pornography? by InfinityWpi · · Score: 2

      Remember, this is the FBI, an agency that boasts about its ability to lie and socially engineer.

      No, that's the CIA, NSA, IRS, LAPD, and YMCA. The FBI is the agency that keeps losing guns and laptops while finding new ways to wiretap your phones without calling it wiretapping.

    4. Re:Child pornography? by coyote-san · · Score: 2

      Personally, I think the child porn laws have gone way too far, but there's a huge difference between the arguments that a technology "might" be used in traffic kiddie porn and the ongoing prosecution of a massive (million dollars/month) ring.

      --
      For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  88. Good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm glad to hear the FBI is looking out for us and that they were able to put together a force with enough intimidation to make their point. It might be a little different if people were shot and killed, but there doesn't sound like there is any permanent damage.

  89. Complete Statement of Muslim Groups by zwerf · · Score: 1

    (WASHINGTON, DC - 9/6/2001) - American Muslim leaders today said a raid Wednesday on a Texas internet business was part of an "anti-Muslim witch hunt" promoted by the pro-Israel lobby in America. Early yesterday morning, more than 80 agents from the FBI, INS, Customs Service, and other federal agencies raided the offices of Infocom Corporation in Richardson, Texas.

    In a statement released at a news conference outside Infocom's headquarters, the Muslim groups said:

    "American Muslims view yesterday's action as just one of a long list of attempts by the pro-Israel lobby to intimidate and silence all those who wish to see Palestinian Muslims and Christians free themselves of a brutal Apartheid-like occupation. We believe the genesis of this raid lies not in Washington, but in Tel Aviv.

    "Hundreds of innocent American businesses and citizens are being harmed by the government's actions. This incident can only serve to marginalize millions of American Muslims who are committed to the betterment of our diverse society.

    "While Muslims understand the FBI's mission to protect American citizens, we are concerned that the civil liberties of Infocom's owners and their many important clients were violated by this unexpected raid. Such an assault leaves the Muslim community and the public at large with many unanswered questions and a lingering sense of violation. We expect the FBI to provide a prompt and full disclosure of the circumstances that led to this raid, the basis of their suspicions and the evidence for which they were searching.

    "It is disturbing that American law enforcement agencies are now perceived by American Muslims and Arab-Americans as being tools in the hands of a foreign government. Our elected officials must not allow Israel to import its unjust and discriminatory policies to this country or to mislabel peaceful challenges to those policies as 'support for terrorism.'"

    Groups represented at the news conference included American Muslim Council, American Muslims for Jerusalem, American Muslim Alliance, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Society of North America, Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic Association for Palestine, Muslim Alliance in North America, Muslim Public Affairs Council, and Muslim Student Association of US and Canada.

    Infocom hosts web sites for some 500 companies worldwide. For several years, Infocom and other Muslim entities in Texas have been the focus of pressure from pro-Israel groups who object to American Muslim support for Palestinian human and political rights. Authorities did not reveal the motive for the raid except to say it was part of an "ongoing investigation."

    One of Infocom's clients whose web site was shut down by the raid is Qatar-based Al-Jazeera satellite television network. Al-Jazeera, a popular and respected Arabic news outlet, has frequently been criticized by Israel for its reporting on that state's brutal policies in the Occupied Territories.

    The raid came just weeks after a Wall Street Journal column by Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes that called for just such an action by the government. They wrote: "...the federal authorities should use the tools it already has for closing down these Web sites and organizations."

    Muslims say Emerson and Pipes are infamous pro-Israel "muslim-bashers" who have a long history of defaming their community.

    SEE: "Steven Emerson's Crusade," http://www.fair.org/extra/9901/emerson.html and "Who is Daniel Pipes?," http://www.cair-net.org/misc/people/daniel_pipes.h tml

    --
    This .sig down for maintenance.
  90. This is the same issue as Steve Jackson Games by Animats · · Score: 2
    Unless the ISP itself, not its customers, is accused of a felony, the FBI is supposed to supoena the data, not search for it themselves.
    I thought we'd settled this with Steve Jackson Games.


    Do we have any info yet on what this is about?

  91. You mean... by IcebergSlim · · Score: 1



    ....kind of like how American tax dollars find their way to Israel in the form of kewl Apache helicopters used to assassinate Palestinian political leaders?

    1. Re:You mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean the terrorist leaders fronting as politicians? Try actually learning something about topics before you spout off ignorantly. And remember that these terrorists you try to defend would be just as happy to kill you as the women and children they target in Israel.

    2. Re:You mean... by IcebergSlim · · Score: 1



      Whatever, Mr. Anonymous Coward. In democratic nations, people accused of terrorism or any other illegal act are arrested and tried by the country's legal system. What kind of government launches missiles into a building to kill the accused? Israel's leaders are terrorists *just as* Hamas' leaders are. What a joke Israel is, and how offensive it is to pay taxes in the U.S. that end up in Israel, with its oppressive, theocratic, NON-DEMOCRATIC government. You're either evil and a liar, or incredibly stupid.

  92. Re:No Need to Go Nuts About This Story by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 0

    Actually, the original poster (in response to me is correct) in a way. First off, when the Romans conquered Israel in 70 CE (AD), they renamed the region Palestine to honor the Philistinian people - a Helenized, nomadic sea people - and to disgrace the Jews. Later, under the British mandate, it continued to call the region Palestine. When Jews would immigrate to Israel, all the way prior to 1948, they had to carry cards identifying them as "Palestinian."

    --
    Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
  93. ^^Funny^^ by MrT · · Score: 1

    That guy's funny, mod him up.

    There, that's got to be my moderating contribution for the next 10 years I reckon.

  94. Let the Racism Begin by khannakhazana · · Score: 1

    Post any story on slash that has a muslim or arab highlight to it and watch the Jews show their racist side. Every comment will have a comment by a Jew telling us something negative about Arabs or Muslims, even though the story might not have anything to do with Jews or the conflict in the Middle East.

    Right now the Jews in the US are strong and they have money but Muslims are emerging fast in the US and are getting strong fast and the Jewry in the US is panicking. This is just one aspect of their panic, use their influence to get as many Muslim orgs as they can banned.

    I will tell you what American Jew work as fast as you can because you dont have much time, 10 maybe 15 years, before muslims are as influential or maybe more influential than you. We will see who can save Isreal after that!

  95. Wat FBI was doing there by khannakhazana · · Score: 1

    I think the FBI if nothing else was probably planting bugs, may be even carnivore type stuff so that they can intercept or ease drop on communications in these Muslim Organizations.

  96. Secret Evidence by khannakhazana · · Score: 1

    There are at least 20 Arabs/Muslims in Jail right now without being told of their crime. Their American Attorneys can't even see that evidence. They can be held like this because they are not US citizens. In most of the cases the suspects are Green card holders. At least they told Skylarov what crime he was being held on.

    The cases are usually thrown out once a judge is allowed to review the evidence against the suspects, but this can take years, average of 4 years per case before the judge gets to see the actual evidence. The evidence usually is an anonymous phone call from an enemy or a former wife or a news paper article from a small town news paper insinuating terrorism charges without any concrete evidence.

    The reason the warrant is sealed in this case is probably that the evidence is very weak. If you don't agree there is a bias against Muslims or Arabs then read about these so called "Secret Evidence" cases.

  97. Re:PLEASE SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE GNUHAIKU!!! by twinpot · · Score: 1
    Who wins the spiritual battle? Certainly not Allah or God.

    Neither, especially when both of them are the same being/god. Same dad, different sons.

  98. C'mon you wimps.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting how everybody stayed away from this comment. Political correctness at its best.

  99. Got Life? by quintessent · · Score: 2

    A few points:
    One can enjoy Slashdot and criticize it at the same time.
    Less is more; briefness is not always thoughtlessness.
    That said, your point is well taken. Positive criticism is usually better than cynicism.

  100. But of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course I swallowed. What is there that tastes better than a good gulp of sperm? That's right, gaydot, nothing. Nothing I say. Nothing! That's why I swallowed. I always swallow, and I always will. Gaydot, you're with me on this aren't you?

  101. Bruce Sterling Online by wiredog · · Score: 2

    Much of his writing, including the Crackdown, is available here

  102. Finally an answer to the riddle: by Big+Nothing · · Score: 1

    How many FBI agents does it take to shut down a web server?

    --
    SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
  103. Definition of terrororism by AftanGustur · · Score: 2

    Funny, but Israel IS a terrorist state according to the USA definition:

    The DOD definition of terrorism is:
    "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

    http://www.terrorism.com/terrorism/bpart1.html

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    1. Re:Definition of terrororism by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      > The DOD definition of terrorism is:
      > "the calculated use of violence or the threat of
      > violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or
      > to intimidate governments or societies in the
      > pursuit of goals that are generally political,
      > religious, or ideological."

      I.e. speak softly and carry a big stick. The US is a terrorist country under that definition. So, to, are virtually all countries.

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    2. Re:Definition of terrororism by AftanGustur · · Score: 2

      I absolutely agree with you.

      That's why I always regard it as half-truth when the press shouts about those crazy palestinian terrorists.

      If killing a political leader in his office, with a rocket fired from a helicopter, is not terrorism, then the whole issue has been turned upside down.

      Also, another thing that is always forgotten. The Israelis are fighting for peace, but the Palestinians are fighting for justice. We will never have neither until both parties understand this.

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    3. Re:Definition of terrororism by mpe · · Score: 2

      Funny, but Israel IS a terrorist state according to the USA definition:

      Wonder if the USA meets the definition, either now or in recent history...

  104. Get Real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taking a hard-line stance like you do only provokes others to automatically take the 'opposing view.' You have no objectivity and much arrogance. Reminds me much of the style utilized by Gary Condit.

  105. Re:Let the Racism Begin (OT) by Cederic · · Score: 1


    I'm not a Jew, so I'll reply to this.

    - there are no other replies to this comment, so immediately you are proven a liar (as no jews have replied to it)
    - 98% of the comments I have read say nothing negative about Muslims or Arabs. In fact, the general concensus is that the FBI actions seem a tad harsh and possibly unnecessary
    - So far the most racism I have seen in response to this story is that inherent in your post. e.g. "American Jew work as fast as you can because you dont have much time" is blatantly a racist threat.

    How about you learn how to be tolerant to other people and their religions - after all, isn't Islam meant to be more tolerant of 'single god' religions than any other religion out there?

    ~Cederic worries about people like khannakhazana

  106. Maybe the Feds are in the right? by Ummagumma · · Score: 1

    At the risk of becoming serious flame-bait here, anyone stop to consider, that maybe the Feds are right here, and that the warrant is sealed for a reason, and not some government-coverup conspiracy crap?

    Not everything the government does is evil - lets give the facts time to shake out before we castrate the government for this one. That is, if the facts ever come out...

    (note - this was origionally posted as a reply to the wrong news item. D'OH!)

    --
    "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson
  107. Um, not quite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The IDF has previously asked that the terrorists be arrested, per treaty. They were not arrested, they were allowed to roam freely and continue to openly participate in terrorist activities.
    In 1967 Israel was under a naval blockade by Egypt, commonly considered an act of war. This is why the Northern U.S. could not block Southern ports during the U.S. Civil war- it would have opened the door to direct foreign involvement. War was imminent in 1967. If you have your fist back to punch me, and I kick you, can you really claim that I started the fight?

  108. NPR is unbiased??? by gaudior · · Score: 1
    Give me a F**KING BREAK.

    NPR is nowhere near unbiased.

    1. Re:NPR is unbiased??? by geomon · · Score: 1

      There isn't a news source in the world that is unbiased...

      only slightly less biased than the other guy...

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  109. The 4th amendment by thejake316 · · Score: 1

    makes no provision for "sealed warrents" at all. This is blatently unconstitutional (to say nothing of the constitutional problems with the FBI and similar agencies conducting armed raids, that is, THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION) and will continue until Americans decide to defend the Constitution by whatever means neccisary or until the courts decide to read the 4th (and the rest of the bill of rights) and says "sealed warrents are probably not consititutional, so we shouldn't issue them. Oh, and the FBI really only has jurisdiction on federal property, so maybe we shouldn't have them execute search and seizure on private property."

    This republic is slowly turning into a police state. Remember Elian? a blatently unconstitutional kidnapping basically ordered by the EXECUTIVE BRANCH (unconstituional). That's my favorite, that picture of the federal agent is our future. One day you'll be looking down the barrel of that automatic weapon, maybe you'll notice that the agent has his finger in the trigger guard, maybe you'll do some research on what our domestic security forces are packing and realize you're an agent's twitch and one second away from 15 9 or 10mm chunks of lead puncturing you. Maybe you'll realize that you and the general public will never know the names of these federal agents (unless the federal government makes a mistake), so when your rights are violated you can't even bring charges or sue.

    Ever hear of Lon Horiuchi? If you or I had killed somebody's defenseless wife with a high-powered rifle regardless of what legitimate targets might be in the vicinity (like I suppose a deer, since that's all civilians are supposed to own rifes for, I guess), we'd be called a murderer, tried, and probably rot in jail. If a government employee does it he's "dedicated and hard-working" and "just following orders."

    Ja, ja. We've heard that one before. So much for "never again," eh? Well, the moral of the story is when it gets to the point that you're hiding in the attic, please, when they come for you, TAKE SOME WITH YOU.

    --
    AC's cheerfully ignored
  110. Re:What amazes me... (OT: Nazi republicans) by gaudior · · Score: 1

    Do you own any Mutual Funds? You may also own part of IG Farben.

  111. Re:No Need to Go Nuts About This Story by Chacham · · Score: 1

    Look at any world map before 1945, there's a clearly marked country calledcalled 'Palestine'.


    Yes, but called it that? When, and why?

  112. Re:CNN probably has stuff too (like pornography!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yawn. Flamebait.

  113. Re:Has anyone else noticed an anti-muslim bias in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i know I did... I am begining to suspect this is the work of a full-time moderator... maybe one assigned to slashdot.org with unlimited number of moderator points. Sort of like an 'outside' editor that snops around writers in news agency... telling them which story is newsworthy and which one should be supressed.

  114. Re:PLEASE SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE GNUHAIKU!!! by Chacham · · Score: 1

    Palestinian Arabs had lived for over 1400 years in peace with every one in their country, there are peace full people the are defending their lives, land, in war against by Zionist Jews.


    You are so funny. You make it sound as if everyone loves the Palestinians. As if all Arabs live together in perfect harmony. Aren't the Palestinians most of Jordan, but have no control. Weren't their rights to own land recinded in Labanon? Aren't they still in refugee camps for over fifty years when they could easily be given housing in neighboring states.

    You may disagree with how the Israelis treat the Palestinians, and it is your right to express that opinion. But don't lie about how they are treated by others. And by themselves.

  115. Racist FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ahem *clear throat*

    fuck the fbi and their racist bullshit. every one of those nazi criminals-with-badges can burn in hell.

  116. Re:PLEASE SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE GNUHAIKU!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What makes it even more pathetic is the fact that there is no such thing as "god". These people are killing each other over a conflict of mythologies! Astounding.

  117. Infocom? by Takatsuki · · Score: 1

    Along with agents from the State Department, U.S. Customs and the U.S. Secret Service, the FBI began their search at Infocom Corporation, based in Richardson, Texas earlier this morning.

    FBI> find subversive islamic web server

    > I don't see any subversive islamic web server here.

    taka

    --
    my other post is +5 insightful
  118. Re:PLEASE SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE GNUHAIKU!!! by CRB2500 · · Score: 1

    Well it sure keeps your religion from losing to MTV!
    In England it is: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-2001310271, 00.html

    So this works well for both sides. Sure you kill a few followers but it beats having you power base being destroyed by MTV, the Green Party, and the Occult.

    Heck you wouldn't want those people to start thinking for themselves. They might eat PORK! Or they might drink beer! Or any of those REALLY important things that are worth killing each other for...

    I'm all for morals, and ethics, but when you have to keep killing others in the process it kinda makes the rest of your "values" fscked. Seems the Christers learned that after slaughtering the Native Americans, and it still continues today with a few Doctor Assassins but no where near what goes on there.

    I'm not a kettle calling the pot black here. We in the US of A are far from "rational" with how we conduct or lives. We execute people... Thanks to the Internet you can see a lovely video of a real old fashion stoning... Stoning or electric chair the end result is the same that the STATE has killed. The STATE is supposed to be BETTER than it's people. How can the STATE say killing is wrong then do it?!? We take mentally ill people and throw them in prisons for being ill, or people who are addicts. Science shows us that for many it's NOT a matter of will power or moral fiber that makes a person an addict. It's the brain chemistry and social situation of the person, but still we act like people from the Salem witch hunts. Blind to facts and sucking the teat of lies from the press.

    Nuff Said.

  119. They took my Arabic Bible by infocom · · Score: 1


    The anti-Arab hysteria of our government is best demonstrated by the fact that the FBI confiscated as "evidence" from our offices an Arabic Bible!

  120. Privacy Protection Act of 1980 by bmasel · · Score: 2

    Searches of News organizations are governed by the Privacy Protection Act of 1980



    --
    Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
  121. Re:PLEASE SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE GNUHAIKU!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not every card carrying religious member is actually living up to the commandments, many are not.

    the example of the colonization, and massacre of the various indigenous peoples commited by the various european nations(and other indiginous peoples) should in no way be used to denounce the actual teachings of the religions-as these atrocities are transgressions against God's Laws as revealed by the prophets.

  122. I don't care / I do care by samantha · · Score: 1

    I don't care about it being a largely Muslim site or rather supporting a lot of Muslim web presence. What I care about is that our government can come in on some pretext and copy any of our computer files in toto and even cart of our machines without even specifying what it is about. That is extremenly frightening and quite antithetical to any sort of genuine human freedom. RISE UP!

    It is not the Muslims or any other smokescreen that is under attack and oppression here. It is all of us.

  123. internet is un islamic anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like pictures, carvings,photos...
    as a consolation, GUI too
    but command line is allowed :-)

  124. Yeah Mr. Rothfuss, shalom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jewish interests have grown into the US administration like a tapeworm growing into human bowels. That's the reason the US is blindly backing Israel's interests despite its human right violations against native Palestinians. During ongoing anti racism conference in South Africa, US walked out because other nations were convinced that Zionism is a form of racism. Once 'the land of the free' now it has been changed into a Trojan horse by a clever minority. Shalom.

  125. HR1266 Re:I don't care / I do care by infocom · · Score: 1
    You are absolutely right.

    This all started when the government decided to take away due process of law when dealing with what they claim to be terrorism cases. What this means is that they can do things without filing any charges or reasons, or showing any evidence. This is calles secret evidence, and has been used to detain nearly 30 Muslims -- all without any evidence, charges or any due process of law. This is unconstitutional, but the joint terrorism task force has given themself "above the law" status, so they act with free raine against the people of the United States.

    What you can do?

    Call you congressional representative and insist that he/she support HR1266, The Secret Evidence Repeal Act of 2001. This Act is aimed to re-instate due process of law as promised in our US Constitution. We can not allow our constitution to be hyjacked by special interest groups (ADL) who care more about foreign governments that our own people and our own nation.

    Go to http://www.politics.yahoo.com and enter your zip code to find your Rep. Also check out CAIR -- they have good info on this issue.

  126. WTC by INicheI · · Score: 0

    An Anonymous Reader writes: "An 80-strong U.S. FBI agents raided the Texas-based host of Arabic Web sites, including that of the Arab world's leading independent news channel, prompting charges on Thursday of an 'anti-Muslim witchhunt.'" The Reuters story is at Yahoo! as well. Did you know there was a North Texas Joint Terrorism Task Force, or that it would be shutting down ISPs?

    Notice arab, 'anti-Muslim witchhunt', and an anonymous person. This might have something to do with the tragic events of the past few days. Just some speculation.