Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Shuts Down Somalia Internet Access
BrianGa writes: "This
article reports that Somalia's only internet company and a key telecom company have been forced to close because the United States suspects them of terrorist links."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Can it really be illegal to link to such stuff ? I mean.. what happens if someone searches on the Allmighty google and finds a terrorst link. Will the US shut down Google ?
Ofcourse they can demand the links are removed, but just turning the power switch seems a bit too drastic imho.
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
By suggesting the use of google to find terrorist links, you have become a terrorist link yourself. Prepare to have your plug pulled...
Blar.
Suspects? No proof... we just _think_ this is the case? This bothers me...
Skivvy Niner? Email me!
HEY! Look left just ONE MORE TIME!
A little evidence would be nice before one goes and cuts off a whole country from the 'net. The fact that they denied it is irrelevant; anyone would deny it, especially knowing that the US is on the warpath. But it's pretty hard to see the US having an ulterior motive for shutting them down; Somalia isn't exactly a force to be reckoned with. Unless the motive is to use Somalia as a "test case" to see how the world reacts to US/Europe flexing its muscles a little....
OTOH, this doesn't affect me personally at all... no servers I use are in Somalia, I don't even know any sites there.
But it's a disturbing precedent.
I hate Yankees like you . all high and mighy on yourselves. Blame everything onus (canada) well where did the terroists trian to crash planes? yup the US.
The US and the UK gave them access. They (we) can take it away.
--Joey
They are not talking about hyperlinks there skippy....go read the article.
Does that mean that the US are now "hacker terrorists" for causing a crime of mass disruption?
BOMBS AWAY!
It's been a long time.
It's a coincidence that they are the ONLY ISP in Somalia and that they're suspected of terrorist links. As much as some people here would like to believe it, I'm sure the US is not trying to curtail the Somalian people's "freedom" to use the Internet.
You would know that the "links" refered to are not www hyperlinks, but "links" in the sense of associated with.
i.e. they are suspected of actually being actively involved in terrorist networks, including supplying them with funding.
Linking to information is irrelevant to the action.
And how a relevant got into my pajamas I'll never know.
KFG
Who is blaming anything on Canada? What are you talking about. Go back to sleep.
Isn't this the place we struck after the embassy bombings? We claimed we bombed a chem weapons plant. Turns out we destroyed their largest pharmaceuticals factory.
Great.
Lies about crimes
What kind of country is Solamia? I don't feel bad for any country smaller than Texas.
(that's supposed to be funny, but I'm in a bad mood so take it as you will)
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
Good for Somalia. The US took action against a company, not the country, just because it happens to be the only provider in that country doesn't make them any different. Do you think that the US Government shouldnt' split MS since the public thinks they're the only thing on the desktop?
AOL should go into that market. There will be 0 competion and should be easy to buy off the government to keep it that way.
We have to trust the intellegence community has solid evidence against these companies. It would be political sucide if they didn't.
It's horrible that the Somalians have essentially been shut off from the outside world but while such an action may have negative short term effects, it will benefit the Somalians in the long run.
If these companies are washing money for terrorist groups they are obviously corrupt. The next question is what other bad things have these companies done.
Hopefully, this will open up the market to another honest company that will in the long run benefit the Somalians.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
Great Firewall in China and Saudi Arabia
US shuts down Somalian ISP
....
What next ?
France DOS-ing sites that trade Nazi memorabilia
Muslim countries attacking sites that advocate women's rights
...
...
Eventually, each and every country will attack the sites that it considers offensive
The Raven.
The Raven
They are talking about financial ties to terrorists. Though the article is a little vague about how those companies were used to support terror, it mentions that the Somalian Government is looking into the companies in question. The two companies responsible for the telephone connection in Somalia (AT&T, British Telecom) are from the two major players in the coalition against terrorism. How can they not comply and still be considered patriotic?
----
I think Somalia has more presseing problems to worry about than worring about the few hundred lucky Somalians who have internet access.
/. etc...
IMHO feeding starving people is more important than checking email, reading
IMHO
Imagine what the Somalians think now to hear that the United States has shut down their two major communication companies? This will just create more anti-American tension within the world of Islam.
void women (int money, time_t time);
Browse at -1.
I wish that they would show messages modded beneath your threshhold if there are messages at your threshhold attached to it, or just don't show any of the messages in the thread. It just serves to confuse.
It's been a long time.
First Echelon, and now this? Gee mom, uncle sam's getting paranoid!
With a big blade and loads of beer, there's nothing I can't do.
So it's come to this again. Because we need or want to get rid of some controlling individuals, but won't go in and do it directly, we apply larger scale sanctions that mostly hurt the people that rely on them. Although this is really small scale stuff compared to Iraq and, what's that other place... oh yeah, Cuba.
I know, I know, it's up to the the locals to clean their own house, but I have to question our record on applying and lifting sanctions. Here we are cosying up with communist China, and one faction in Afghanistan, and yet we still sanction communist Cuba and Iraq and are bombing the crap out of our ex best buddies in Afghanistan, racking up civilian casualties among the populations we profess to want to liberate, while not being willing to take the media hit of spending the life of one US serviceman (volunteers all) to get the guy we originally went in after.
It would be nice if just for once, we could say "Here is a list of the bad guys. We are going to get them, but we will go after them, and only them, and will lose US servicemen in preference to killing civilians and discounting their lives as 'collateral damage'" Then without any ceremony or fanfare or spin doctoring, we sit and wait for six weeks until they've got complacent and cocky, then quietly blow the fuckers' brains out in dark alleyways.
This is tough on Somalia, but Somalians can at least count themselves lucky that they're not Iraqis or Cubas. God damn, I hate the hypocrisy of politicians.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Al-barakatt is the Somali version of Western Union - they take money and 'wire' it over to Somalia for delivery. Unfortunatly, the terrorists are taking a cut of all transfers:
US Government View
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/0111
Al-barakatt is an ISP, kind of like how the mafia is a security firm.
I imagine the "Blame America First" crowd it running around gleeful: Look America is crushing open communication in Somalia.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
As a QB, VB, C, and JAVA coder, I can say without any hesitation that VB allows for the LEAST amount of low level tinkering, and is the SLOWEST language around. At least I can manipulate hardware using QB or C, and with Java, I can control what is done. With VB, I have what MS has given me, no more.
:)
Of course, I realize this is a 6 month old troll, but I don't really care...I'm just rambling on to waste time
Options->Comment Options->Reparent comments: off.
Did we really have to put 2 of the top 3 stories from bbc? On the day after thanksgiving we're slashdotting one of the only things keeping me awake...:(
MessEdUp
#/var/www/v
This is all utter crap. The US lately has gotten into the habit of making bold statements and taking sweeping action, while at the same time claiming that they have irrefutable evidence, but providing none of it. Under the guise of surpressing terrorism, they're terrorising the world themselves in their own way. It really stinks. In the land of the free, it is evidently clear that everyone is free to be hypocrites. And why not, your government certainly makes being a hypocrite convenient enough.
Woah, that is pretty crazy. I've met Taco once at a Linux con a long time ago and that video definately looked like him. It could be faked, but its pretty interesting nonetheless. Can anyone else confirm if this is him or not?
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
This won't prevent satellite internet access, and I though that Bin Laden had access to this? Also, some of the international lines are up, so they could get through.
Um, this is my sig.
I saw a long article on the cover of one of the news rags (Time or Newsweek; can't remember) asking "Why do they hate us?" They had a long, fairly historically informed argument about the breakup of the Ottoman empire, the controversy of the Israeli state, and the rise of fundamentalism. It was a pretty good analysis, but its basic undertone was "the Muslim world is angry and backward".
There's a shorter answer to "Why do they hate us?" in this article about Somalia. I don't care how much our intelligence services swear that the ISP was run by terrorists -- it's just impossible not to read this as, "You primitive black people don't need the internet, and now we're smacking you down to size." When the US has "severely restricted international telephone lines and shut down vitally needed money transfer facilities", that sure sounds like an act of economic terrorism to me -- justified or not.
Remember that when the US bombed that "nerve gas factory" in Somalia, we were never able to present any hard post-hoc evidence that it was not, as the Somalis claim, a medicine factory. Eventually, the Pentagon mostly kind of sort of admitted it was full of shit. "Oops, sorry! We'll be more careful next time!"
"Why do they hate us?" Because we're a bunch of self-righteous bastards who think we can do whatever we want to the rest of the world.
When we cut off the Somalis' access to medicine, phones, internet, and money transfer because of suspected terrorism, we have a responsibility to step in and make sure that those services get provided somehow -- otherwise we are not punishing terrorists, but creating them.
Please don't mod this as a troll; I really do think this is a straightforward tactical mistake.
Off-topic: there seem to be very few posts today, anything to do with Quest's DSL network going down? in the same week as BT's national network went down? I don't believe in coincidences like this. Someone has a zero--day sploit against the network hardware - something from Cisco is my bet...
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
This is exactly the kind of action that spawns terrorist attacks. The U.S. imposes their power upon other countries who neither need nor want "help" and with only heresay as evidence destroy a country's only communications system. And they wonder why they are attacked...
Shouldn't You expect more from your DJ?
What gives the right to US people to shut down and interfere with the internals of another country? If there was NATO or UN or something like that, behind a *request* for a shut down, then yes, it would be somewhat appropriate. But USA? Shutting down? Without asking permissions? PLEASE!
A Greek person (I have nothing to do with Somalians or Afgan people, but still...)
It sickens me that the US is terrorizing so many more people by shutting down and closing key telecommunications companies. In the article, it has stated many times about how the citizens of Somalia desparately need the cash from family members working abroad. If you do not remember, Somalia is a very poor third world country (i remember just a few years ago our churh was sending canned food and things like that to them).
It is fine that the US wants to capture bin Laden, but it is completely another thing to do this doing 'whatever it takes'. I believe the US should realizes the ramifications of it's decisions and either sets up temporary management for the phone company or reinstates it.
And from a non american point of view, I can't help but think that the US is taking this too far.
Historically it has only rarely been proven wise to simply trust the intelligence community. I'll bet on the swift and strong, thank you.
I might also add that it is the first responsibility of every US citizen, indeed the *primary* responsibility, to trust nothing.
Only the cynic is the "true" American and patriot. It is a structure of political *equals.* Indeed, in many repects the simple citizen is politically superior to the president himself. It is the citizens who chose him and the citizens who may dismiss him.
He will be president for a maximum of 8 years. A citizen is a citizen for life. He must then protect his political interests for *life,* and the life of his decendents, not meerly a few years.
The intelligence community is the place where the greatest *ememies* of the state reside.
KFG
KFG
Us, cultural genocide.
It shouldn't be a problem, really. There are plenty of tin cans and string laying around to rebuild the network with. Those African bushmen who communicate with eachother using clicks and clucks might come in handy. Get one of them to whistle a tone, and make the other send data at 300 baud.
Bowie J. Poag
"He added the impact would be felt even more strongly because the cuts have come during the holy month of Ramadan."
If I correctly remember the Islamic teachings... Ramadan is a month of relaxation and meditation in which one downloads porn from the internet.
Arn't they inocent untill proven guilty? If not then we Americans are a bit unfair with our dealings with others.
I love the war on terrorism, and how ignorant 90% of americans are to there own faults. How many innocent people have bombs killed in Afganistan? probably close to how many died in the WTC, and now how many people are going to starve because of this? Who is REALLY the terrorist? Lets look up terrorism in the dictionary....
The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Funny, that almost sounds like what the USA is doing. HMMMMM
Everybody who have once played AD&D for sometime have ever headr about the Dark Palladin.
Once upon a time, a long long time ago, a woman (I don't remember her name), a palladin (lawful good) that have promissed to fight against all evil in the world if her child survives the terrible plague.
Once her son has survived she went to the holy fight against the evil, killing with no mercy all evil she could encounter, and destroying all the evil in the region.
Once she had destroyed all the evil (chaotic evil, neutral evil and lawful evil) she decided to destroy every soul that is not good. Many was killed, even innocents and children was killed.
She generated horror all around the reign destroying every soul not good, and now she started to kill non-lawful (chaotic good and neutral good). It was horrible, the fear was everywhere, nobody could ever know when the palladin could appear.
One day, after killing dozens of non-lawful-good she was praying when a strange mist came all around her beloved church. Her shining armor became dark and a voice told her: "You have done a wonderful job, but now I have something even bigger for you."
Now she has a whole realm for her in Ravenloft.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
I don't know whether or not it was linked to terrorists.
But assuming the US government is right, since this was the only ISP in Somalia, wouldn't the political thing to do be replacing the ISP with one that perhaps has more controls? An ISP that perhaps when they feel things are safe again, then could hand over to Somalia?
After all, they've effectively cut a nation off of the Internet.
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
From what we know from Bush we can easily predict what he would do if he was in the position of the leaders of Somalia: he would ask Al Quaida to destroy MAE East in Virgina. Problem is that someone else might get the same idea.
Can someone please explain to this egocentric man that if you treat others badly it will come back to haunt you sooner or later?
You can only build a "new world order" if countries start to treat each other in a civilized way. As long as the US thinks that it can do what it wants there will be lots of frustrated people who turn into terrorists.
We're not a bunch of self righteous bastards who whink we can do whatever we want to the rest of the world, we're a bunch of self righteous bastards who KNOW DAMN WELL we can do whatever we want to the rest of the world.
*We* created the massively booming global economy, *we* created the technology that these companies have been using, *we* provided their internet access, *we* provided the financial support to the entire country that allowed these businesses to exist and *we* were the ones who had 4000 innocent civilians die because of organizations these companies and countries were supporting.
WHO THE HELL CARES what they think of us? You can't fight the actual individuals who are working towards the kind of attacks that we have been the successful and unsuccessful targets of. You can't threaten to bomb them -- they expect to die. All you can do is start making life as difficult as possible to live (or impossible to live in the case of those who end up under one of our bombs) for those guilty-by-association (and unfortunately those innocent people who have chosen to stand by and allow the guilty to operate). We can't stop terrorists directly with threats or direct actions, but if the threat of suffering and death makes the people around them take action and prevent their actions, then so be it. Good for us for having the ability to do that.
When it comes down to us or them, 100:1 isn't bad return in my book.
Redmond 11/13/1999
As part of the US Government's shutdown of the only Internet Service Provider (ISP) in Somalia, Microsoft has announced a new povision of their pending punishment from the US Justice Department. The Microsoft subsidiary msn.com will now provide Internet service to Somalia. It will be free for the first month, after which market rates will determine the cost of further service.
As part of the arrangement, all equipment and servers in Somalia will be converted to the latest Microsoft products. Previously, the service had been provided with old hardware running such unbranded systems as linux and FreeBsd. Microsoft and US government spokesmen claim that this will provide for improved service, at least during times when the new computers are up and running.
The CIA has expressed a desire to cooperate with the installation. A spokesman said that previous Internet gateways in Somalia had been "overly difficult for information gathering, due to their support for unbreakablel encrypion." The new systems will presumably cooperate fully with the recently-announced email virus that uses Microsoft Outlook to install keylogger software.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Remember that when the US bombed that "nerve gas factory" in Somalia, we were never able to present any hard post-hoc evidence that it was not, as the Somalis claim, a medicine factory. Eventually, the Pentagon mostly kind of sort of admitted it was full of shit. "Oops, sorry! We'll be more careful next time!"
Actually it was a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan not Somalia. Interestingly enough the fact that the US bombed a factory that was producing medicine for in a poor country that is torn apart by famine, disease and strife is one of the rallying cries that Bin Laden used to recruit and swell the ranks of Al-Qaeda.
Just recently several money transfer services in my hometown of Minneapolis were shut down. these were services used by our large Somali population to wire money back home to family members- they are a form of money tranfer based on trust called "hawalla". rather than paperwork etc it all is based on money transfers happening because people can be held to their word.
these organisations (that were shut down) were purportedly having money skimmed off the top of each transfer by members of the Al-Qu'eda network. whether or not this was happening, and whether or not the proprietors were aware of it, it has had a large negative impact on the US Somali community.
The Somali companies shut down that this article references were conduits for these money transfers, and I personally expect to see dire consequences come from this. as it states, 80% of the money coming in to somalia is from foreign workers sending money home. Do the math on that, and you come up with a large number of hardworking US residents having no way to support starving family members back home! this isn't a good thing.
I fully support shutting down organizations and companies that are funding terrorist activities- but how hard would it be for Bush to help out these hawallas and open up alternate methods of transfer? I'm sure that some of them would be willing to some oversight into their financial transactions as well, vs. being put out of business permanently.
I'd like to see a little more of that "compassionate conservatism" and a little less of Bush's ethnocentric reactionism. let's pray that he comes to his senses and stops harming innocent civilians in this crisis.
EOM
Yeah, and who cares if their actions will mean poverty-stricken Somalis won't get money they desperately need. Who cares if the UN is unable to perform their aid functions there.
Obviously not the Bush administration. Their idea of "social responsibility", if they have one, doesn't cross the border.
Not to detract from the rest of your argument, but the pharmaceutical factory in question was in Sudan (Khartoum iirc), not Somalia.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
I hear Florida's Internet access is the next to be shutdown. The Brother suspects them of terrorist links.
The White House release says al-Qaida used their services. Well of course they have, the firm has locations through out the Islamic world. al-Qaida has used plenty of Western banks like Britain's Barclays as well. I don't see much happening to them.
I'm sure the officials who decided to shut down the company don't think of themselves as racist. But the thought of shutting down a Western bank wouldn't even occur to them, especially if it was the largest employer in its country.
I guess that's a thing of the past?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
This is getting silly. The US harboured terrorists for 4 years before said terrorists blew up the WTC. What now, tanks in the streets?
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
The two firms, Somalia Internet Company and al-Barakaat, both appear on a US list of organisations accused of funnelling money to the al-Qaeda network.
Pres. Bush has declared war on terrorism, in particular the al-Qaeda network. The al-Quaeda network is very active in Somaila.
So what's the problem?
I'm not about censorship... but if those companies are using their PROFITS to funnel money into the hands of terrorists then I see no problem in shutting them down!
[Connection closed by foreign host]
Plenty of techs in the US passed through the stage in the early 90s where folks who'd been running BBS systems (for instace, FidoNet) transitioned to starting local ISPs.
If you were advising someone in a minor 3rd-World town about a minimal working setup to provide local ISP service, what would they need? Sure, a line in. Power. A couple cheap clone PCs with Linux. Modems. More phone lines - or are there places where wireless or even local ether would make more sense?
Are there Net resources - or books - that provide basic instructions for the would-be local startup 3rd-World ISP? Because Somalia's problem is it only had two, and their lines were to companies under US sway. If they had 20 ISPs - or 100 - linked out through many other nations, this wouldn't be trouble. If new ISPs came up faster than old ones could be shut down, also just a nuisance.
Once the kit is designed, what would be required for it to enable stealth ISPs, say in China, Tibet....
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
taking a whole country offline. wow.
I'm sure the perspectives are different in a country where most people don't know where their next meal will be coming from, but from a geekish perspective, that's incredible.
not only does it show just how much the internet has moved away from the initial highly resistant setup, it also shows that technical dangers (including physical loss of connectivity due to the line ceasing to exist after a bombing) aren't the only ones you face.
the article also shows that we're not talking about a "mommy, I can't surf porn anymore" situation. the countries largest employer has been destroyed, money transfers that lots of ordinary people rely on are frozen, human aids groups have lost contact to the outside world.
I see exactly one country that engages in terrorist activities, and it ain't afghanistan or iraq.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
If I can't access the internet while I'm in Somalia, then the terrorists have won.
...oh.
...Should be set to off by default.
Just a thought...
and thanks for the advice.
My history professor taught that, at least in the past 400-500 years or so, every time there has been a major advance in communications capability, a war follows as a result. I'm beginning to think he was correct.
that ever happened to the US Government. Now they can do all the stuff they've wanted to do for years, under the guise of National Security, and Fighting Terrorism. How long do you think it'll be before they're back in Iraq going after Saddam?
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Al Barakaat's founder, Shaykh Ahme Nur Jimale, is closely linked to Usama bin Laden.
If we believe this, we're right to take action. But direct action.
Which we undoubtably will. But lets finish with Afghanistan first. Folks, get over yourself. America is at war, really at war, not just scratching an itch. For the first time since 1945. Bitch and moan all you like, but places like Afghanistan and Somalia, which btw is also know for having numerous Al Qaida camps, will be taken down and the terrorists killed. Wail and moan all you like, it will change nothing. We're through kowtowing to every wannabe critic for being the sole superpower and not magically creating the perfect world according to 6 billion different definitions of the above. We were attacked, and we will exterminate our attackers, wherever they hide, wherever they are given sanctuary. And if you are giving them sanctuary, then you too shall suffer. Get over it, and be glad that, for now, all we've stopped are wire transfers.
And I say this as a liberal, generally very harsh critic of our government. Imagine how the moderates and the conservatives feel, right now. We are relentless, and when angered we are ruthless in ferretting out and killing the enemy. Since the events on 9/11 we are very, very angry, and countries like Somalia and Afghanistan, that harbor terrorists, are going down. One after another, like dominos, until we have accomplished our task.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled, anti-American bashing, bitching, and moaning, brought to you by the First Amendment coupled with a large dose of absolute cluelessness and knee-jerk "I'm politically informed yes I am" wannabe parrots.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
1. The US finds that Bin Laden is going to attempt to make it to Somalia. His means of communication is encrypted email. Hmm.. let's see. We get rid of the ISP, no communication, escape plan receives a shot to the gut.
2. The next phase of the operation is to start to expand the hunt to other terrorist cells. Cut off their means of communication so that special ops teams can begin visiting them.
The downside? My keystrokes are being monitored and it takes up valuable CPU time.
You're using two different meanings of the word harboring. The terrorists lived in the US for four years, without US knowledge.
Usama Bin Laden lives or lived in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, with the understanding and support of the Taliban, and rejected the (powerless) United Nations attempt to extradite him from Afghanistan under United Nations Resolution 1267 (1999) for the murder of hundreds of individuals in embassy bombings.
It's one thing to have a murderer hiding without your knowledge in your basement. It's quite another thing to hide the murderer in your basement with intent.
I'm a nature photographer.
traceroute to vh-nt.ceniai.inf.cu (169.158.128.69), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets :)
13 if-8-0.core2.NewYork.Teleglobe.net (207.45.222.21) 149.840 ms 146.416 ms 150.475 ms
14 if-9-0.core1.Montreal.Teleglobe.net (64.86.83.225) 154.642 ms 152.304 ms 155.128 ms
15 if-7-0.core1.Laurentides.Teleglobe.net (64.86.80.18) 169.620 ms 150.312 ms 152.973 ms
16 if-12-0-0.bb2.Laurentides.Teleglobe.net (64.86.81.71) 156.376 ms 152.884 ms 154.099 ms
17 ix-4-0-5-0.bb2.Laurentides.Teleglobe.net (207.45.219.14) 1705.787 ms 1568.233 ms 1727.330 ms
Sure is slow, though
Why was this modded -1? it makes perfect sense and it's happened before. Remember all the teenagers in the USSR in the 80's? the loved american rockmusic and other things. then when teh ussr fell the adopted a more american like life style (sorta) sure american media didn't do it on it's own but I bet it helped. Sometimes I wonder about teh people who mod here/
If you're going to use my story, at least USE MY CORRECT URL...
...does this actually affect??
I'm sick of hearing all of this anti-Americanism on Slashdot. Every post I read seems to be something along the lines of "Where's the proof?" or "What's next, America shutting down dissident sites?"
Well, I'll have you know, we're in a war here. The rules have been changed. It's like those people who shout "We must bring Usama back and try him in our courts!" That's absolutely ridiculous. We didn't try Hitler, nor would we have even considered it if we captured him. It's wartime, the rules are changed. Somalia is just as bad, if not WORSE than Iraq in its harboring and promotion of international terrorists. This could signify the next location of American strikes after the Taliban falls. Imagine how silly you'd seem now if you said we shouldn't be cutting the information lines to the Taliban. That's how silly all of you anti-Americans will sound after the pressure sets in on Somalia.
Remember, this is a war. Your peacetime rules don't apply, so don't pretend to think that they do.
This was funnier the first 50 times it was posted.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=24081&cid=2604 089
Hey fuck you asshole. we are on your side remember? Fuck Canadians died as well ya know? Worth while? ha ha ha ha Talk to me when your schools are educating kids instead of teaching them how to kill one another. Talk to me when you have a working health care system. Talk to me when you have a president who isin't an ex-coke head or a sex addict. Talk to me when you guys get over your obsession with guns(my theory is you guys are covering up for small cocks!) By the way I like Americans I just hate fucking cock suckers like you. I bet your some inbread hick who belongs to the KKK and married his sister and fucked his mom. I bet you also belong to some militia cause you paranoid little head thinks every one is after you. I also hope you grandmother dies of cancer and your parents die in a car crash and your sister is raped by arab terroists. You worthless little fucking shithead. I HOP YOU FUCKING DIE!!!!!!!!
I really don't think they care about internet right now. Etiopia just sent 1000 soldiers into Somalia. The only place I've hear about it is the Danish tv station DR. Everyone else seems to be totally unaware of this action.
I didn't say it was your fault. I said I was going to blame it on you.
I for one would far rather that innocent people continue to die than for email and internet access to infringed upon.
This war, people. This is not an intellectual excercise. This is not a point-counterpoint trial where each person has time to prove their allegations in an organized manner. This is a war. We are the targets. Without quick thinking and quick action, we will all be dead. We are under a very real threat at this very moment.
I would like for you to have the continued freedom to question our capable military advisors, even though you don't know half of what they do. If you would like to have that continued freedom, then you better hope they do a good job beating the enemy. Winning a war somtimes takes drastic action.
I am in full support of this war effort, even if it means some internet access is taken down for a while.
I've heard a lot about America'a war on terrorism. Who hasn't? However, I have only heard about attacks on Bin Laden's crew. What is the US coallition going to be doing about terrorism in Ireland, and in the Middle East? What about Rwanda?
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
here.
Agreed. Fully.
Just how in the hell do "1,000-pound precision-guided bombs "inadvertently [strike] one or more warehouses used by the International Committee of the Red Cross."" One or more?? How can you 'inadvertantly' strike 2+ Red Cross stations?
This newspeak is killing me.
I'm sure a terrorist can accomplish any internet-based activities via a dial-up connection to any ISP around the globe. What exactly does the US hope to accomplish beside raising a terrorists long distance costs and cutting high-speed access?
If there's no government, there's nobody to buy off. The only route to a monopoly is the Alcoa method: reduce your prices and improve your product faster than anyone else can.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is not a war. Only Congress can declare war, which they have not done.
Nice, and you actually got this one to be modded up to 5! Hah.
Fuck Ajit Pai
Saudi Arabia's public works projects exclusively fed the businesses of the Bin Laden family for decades, making the entire family, including Osama, among the richest in the world. This same oil trade (and America's oil addiction) continues to make make wealthy many Middle Eastern supporters of Al Qaida.
First off, the Bin Laden family are actually quite nice people and have had nothing to do with Osama. Since when did these said companies intentionally do business with known terrorists?
Next time, get your facts straight.
Fuck Ajit Pai
At the same time, of course, the US was randomly dropping food supplies all over the place, for anyone to pick up, including Taliban troops.
In this Reuters story, a crate of US food destroyed the ceiling of an Afghan house. The repair will cost more than the food. And the food is unusual for the Afghan taste.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
and don'y forget usa trained finance terrorist organisations in central ameroca for long enough or that us citizens ( of irish descent especially ) financed terrorists for long enough.
just gettting a taste of their medicine. or what goes round comes round
I had hoped the WTC attacks would be America's wakeup call and alert them to the fact that their foreign policy stinks. It seems this is not the case. America continues to play chess, using the less powerful nations as pawns. It was this behavior that caused the WTC attacks and if the US keeps throwing it's weight around like it is, more attacks will follow. How many attacks will be needed to wake up the US government? Hopefully, not too many.
Anyway, the moral of the story is: Just because a country is smaller and less powerful than your own does not mean you do not have to be diplomatic and considerate when dealing with them. Antagonise people enough and they will bite. It's a shame the WTC bite only served to complete the vicious circle of retaliation and counter-retaliation.
: What now, tanks in the streets?
Yes, for example at the Miami Airport.
Welcome to the New World Order.
.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Just saw on CNN last night that in 1997 Ethopia actually INVADED parts of Somalia to attack terrorist training camps there, and they found and killed Arabs terrorists.
Ethopia now claims that members of Somalia's parliaments are allied with or controlled by the same terrorist groups that got their asses kicked back in 1997.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
i mostly agree. the current murdering of thousands of people all around the world in a "fight against terror" lead by the most stupid person ever in such a powerful position is simply awful. if that's what "civilization" is about, we should abandon it... (i do not agree that killing more american civilians would be good, but i'd _love_ not to see that "w" person anymore)
Some key paragraphs from the UN Security Council Resolution:
all States shall: ... suppress the financing of terrorist acts;
all States shall: Prohibit ... making any funds, financial assets or economic resources or financial or other related services available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons who commit or attempt to commit or facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts, of entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons;
Decides also that all States shall: Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens;
other paragraphs here
I believe Juanita
Bow down.
: All this does is make more people mad enough at
: America that they are willing to die for revenge.
Hell, I'm a midwestern Christian white boy, and
*I*'m mad enough at American to be willing to die
for revenge, if I didn't have dependent children.
In about 8 years that will, however, change.
If I flee the police state in the meantime, I
might be more concerned about my new home country,
however.
.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Dude, we are assholes.
The US taking away GPS access is perfectly right if terrorists were using it in missile targeting systems. And your foreign policy explanation means jack without any support. Using support from the article you're posting about, you can say that it's US foreign policy to stop companies that finance terrorism, which makes perfect sense to me.
The IRA's main objective is minority rule by religious fanatics, and their main means of obtaining it is by blowing up innocent people, and shooting the kneecaps off anyone who disagrees.
American ignorance supposes that all Irish are good Irish. This is no more the case than "all muslims are bad muslims".
America has a real problem admitting "All terrorists are bad terrorists" and an excess of commitment to "My enemy's enemy is my friend".
These two ideas need to be sorted out real soon.
Public Law 107-40: Authorization for Use of Military Force
I believe Juanita
Newspeak refers to the alteration of the news dipshit. Read 1984.
Destroying Africa as it stands so it can be reshaped and re-utilized for the already rich.
There is a well-constructed campaign to exterminate native (Dark-skinned) Africans and take control of the resources.
Similarly this occurs in other less industrialized countries where their leadership have been seduced by Western promises of personal gain or are simply corrupt and hateful.
How will this country improve it's knowledge and inform the rest of the world without easy access to global communications medium? They won't, or they aren't intended to have that capability.
However, maybe enough info about other methods of having a WAN are available.
I'm not surprised though.
Neither am I surprised by those who don't care.
Folks, when the government mobilizes to start destroying us, there isn't going to be anyone left who CAN give a damn. Good Luck.
I sure hope my "active intuition" (not paranoia) is wrong.
The IRA almost always owns up to its evil deeds. It wants the world to know who to hate!
Whatever is coming, you cannot compare it to the McCarthy aera.
Never. No way.
Go ahead cut MILITARY INFORMATION LINES.
Not civilian information lines.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Please try to think of any period in human history (whether US government or other) where "innocent until proven guilty" was the foreign policy?
You comment about "thing of the past" is bullshit. Perhaps you're thinking of criminal law?
Just let the Irish talk to everybody and visa versa - things can hardly get worse.
In Yes Prime Minister the civil service was saying how to arrange the states, the prime minister suggested alphabeticaly, to which the civil service replied but that would put Ireland beside Iran and Iraq, and Ireland never solved anything.
But seriously folks the Irish peace process has been playing it pretty close to the wire for years it's about time it was forked elsewhere, Cuba, Afganistan, Korea, Germany (oops done already), Iraq (maybe), someone might "Break on through to the other side"-the doors.
Be Free: Free Software Tuition
I think more than a few people here are having trouble distinguishing between "rights" and "privileges".
Somalia does NOT have a "right" to a damn thing outside what they are capable of generating for themselves (which, aside from kat and drive by shootings from "technicals", isn't much of anything).
The fact that they were given access to the international communications infrastructure by the United States is a privilege.
Remember what happened when the United States went in to feed the Somalis? It ended with 17 dead Rangers and Delta team members, after we went after Adid. And to short circuit the leftist Chomsky idiots, we went after Adid because his forces massacred 24 Pakistani peacekeepers.
The fact that Somalis were starving because of a 4% growth rate and systemic civil warfare does not give them the "right" to U.S. food aid, especially when they turn around and start shoot the people giving out the food.
In places like this and Afghanistan, a shallow grave is the place where leftist idealism meets the real world. For you American leftists, you need to get a grip and realize that your ideas are killing people every day. Your intentions may be pure, but your effects are disasterous.
Give me greedy ambition, evil intentions, and a good result any day over the gift you guys have given the world during the 20th century, and continuing on today.
I think radio was a major factor in making Hitler, Churchill and Ike (probably Stalin too, I don't know) seem great leaders.
TV on the other hand, has probably done more to prevent wars - all of us in Europe can see the rest of Europe is much like us (only cheaper)
and TV dis a lot to help anti-vietnam war sentiment.
It used to be said that in the 60s, a large black uprising in the USA was prevented by showing James Brown on TV.
It has often been succested that war in the Balkans could be avoided by giving them all decent TV shows. (Might be best to avoid gangsta rap). The only plausible reason for removing Somalia from the Internet map is to hide what the CIA is up to. - or the Somalians would be posting it on /. Looks like I'll have to pop across the road to the Somalian Internet cafe to find out for myself. - Yes its true - I live in London, and my nearest Internet Cafe is owned by Somalians!
rm3friskerFTN replies: Congress did declare war (grin)... Authorization for Use of Military Force
danheskett wrote: Any action that the US Government takes - to any other nation or any civilian or any citizen must be preceeded and anteceded with due process.
rm3friskerFTN replies: UN Security Council Resolution 1373 authorized this and other measures.
danheskett wrote: Due process is deserved by all.
rm3friskerFTN replies: Funny ... Joe Terrorist is found with a suitcase nuke in his apartment. Ooops ... he can't be sent to jail because it was discovered by the authorities without a search warrant. Joe Terrorist must be set free. IANAL, but I understand that in legal circles there is a Latin expression for this meaning "in war the law is silent regarding liberties"
I believe Juanita
I think this is a terrible, terrible thing.
The internet is the property of everyone and every country which has comitted to it, who is the USA to come along and deny them of access!
Haven't you heard? The last news I heard was the IRA was dis-arming. Not that they were going to be labelled as terrorists, but the attacks have given them a new perspective.
Good one faggot boy
We went in back in '91 to feed the bastards, and they responded by dragging our dead troops through the streets.
Let them starve. The world doesn't need another 14 year old Somali gunman strung out on kat riding in a technical.
If they can't grow enough food to support their 4% growth rate and exploding population, too damn bad. It's not my problem, and they lost all sympathy from me in '93.
Can someone sell me a bunch of nukes so I can stop this world-uberfuhrer-wannabe country thats called United States of America?
*g*
ahahaha that was modded +5?
you are a sad individual. the rational for the us? someone killed a bunch of people so lets go kill a bunch of people that will make it better.
please
its like a fucking drunk father beating his children because he has a bad day at work. this is the same reason that most of the world hates you god damn americans. you think that your shitty pro agression government that thinks fighting will solve anything is right. you think that there is only one option, lets attack the symptom and not the problem.. its very transparent i feel sad for you people.
i dont believe it, maybe im just a skeptic but i cant help but wonder who your really attacking the terrorists or the innocents in the country just like they did to you!
and another thing, i dont think you realize but the war on america did not start with the bombing. many countries have hated the USA for years... Wonder why? no its not because there jealous its because they look at the usa and they see how evil it is. Iraq said it was at war with the usa (1993?) and so did the arabs and if alot of other countries (ie china) were put to the test, they would probably attack the usa as well.
im sick of this pro american shit. you people go around assisinating 3rd world governments, killing civilians and conducting espionage (sp?) and now you cry and bitch because someone decided to fuck you back. well tough shit.
oh and by the way, countries that dont play by the rules of war (chem weapons, extreme torture, etc) are the same ones you are fighting against.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." -Nietzsche
-
I think US does have a right to take away GPS anytime they want. Did other country's citizen pay for the multi million dollars GPS sattelites? Did they pay even a cent on development of the system? No. But US residents did as did I with the taxes from our hard earned money.
US *does* have the right to take away GPS or anything they own. Telecom and internet access was from US, so if US believes that the recipient is not acting in the interest of US, US can do whatever they want. It is up to the recipient to prove that they are acting in US interest. It's a hard fact but beggers can't be choosers.
Also your analogy is false. US did not harboured the terrorists because if US knew of them, US would have kicked them out. These countries know that they have terrorists in their country but did nothing about them.
As for do I agree with what US did? No, I do not think shutting off telecom access is in the best interest of US and there is a better solution but US is perfectly within their right to do so here.
The article the previous poster claimed that the US bombed those targets knowing that it wasn't a military target and that the US State Dept. admitted such.
Of course not. If they HAD targetted these on purpose, and I don't imagine that to be the case (even an idiot could see the potential PR implications and State isn't usually full of idiots), they would be very unlikely to say so. Instead, they'd obfuscate the truth, making it sound like an accident. So, in either case (intentional idiocy or accident), the public presentation would be the same.
Military vehicles had been seen in the vicinity of these warehouses.
And of course, those anxious to decry US action will fail to consider the potential that the Taliban either A) intentionally tried to provoke targetting errors or B) parked their vehicles in these areas as an attempt to sheild them from bombing by assuming the US knew about the Red Cross site.
Read the articles being referred to before accusing someone of newspeak.
Yeah, for the home of open source, free speech, etc., sometimes critical consideration is absent in favor of vitriolic polemic in support of some pre-decided world view.
But that's no excuse for misreading "mistakenly" as "intentional".
That's a generous way of putting it. Misreading indeed.
I see plenty of people decrying the civilian casualties in this conflict. It's terrible to kill 4 aid workers... but I guess perhaps it is okay to kill 4K innocent unsuspecting people? (Or course not!). Anyone getting killed when they are innocent of wrongdoing is a tragedy for all of us.
But so is sitting on your ass and letting murderers continue their foul plots. Osama and his buddies more or less declared open season on the civilized world and called upon every Muslim to take up arms. Them's fighting words, even where I come from North of the 49th.
Now, we don't have the evidence on hand that prompted the decisions to ax Somalia's access. What we hear reported as "suspected" may translate as "evidence available but not to be revealed".
Jumping to conclusions is a popular slashdot pastime. You'd think we'd all be in better shape....
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
Good to hear another voice of intelligence in this babble. And to confess that you're a liberal who is supporting the government's current campaign takes guts, even if we don't know your true name.
I am wondering though, what 'branch' of liberalism you follow. And I don't mean this as a joke or insult, just curiuosity. If there was an election for president, and the following five candidates had equal chance of winning, who would you vote for?
A. Al Gore, Democrat
B. Ralph Nader, Green
C. George Bush, Republican
D. Harry Brown, Libertarian
E. Jesse Ventura, Reform
So you know where I am coming from, I would have voted for Jesse Ventura, and in '92 I did vote for Ross Perot. This time around it was for Bush, but in this state, it doesn't matter, Gore took it by a wide margin.
The president can't declare war. Its unconstitutional. Congress declares war. They haven't done so.
This isn't really a war in those terms. It's more like the "war on drugs". Congress declares war on other countries, any politician can declare war on a vague concept.
The US harboured terrorists for 4 years before said terrorists blew up the WTC.
The US Government sponsers terrorism directly. The fact is that the CIA is widely accepted as a filthy group of killers... the world over. They topple governments, assassinate people and did some fucked up shit during the coldwar. The US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, is a terrorist.
You even have your own dirty little terrorist training ground, colourfully called theSchool of America.
Anyone else interested in the machinations of the US Government and its hypocrasy may also like to read this: A wonderfull plan, on how the Government could 'get away' with starting a war with Cuba - very interesting stuff...
Kettle this is pot, Pot, Kettle.
I really hate people like you.
Maybe you should try checking articles regularly. I saw about 5 disappear after Sept 11th as the Gov put pressure to cover up certain issues.
After all, it's a fact that those have already been used as a means to perpetrate terrorism...
Or can we speak about double(+) standards?
New famous oxymoron: Precision Bomb
Harry Browne loves america. Do you? you sound like you don't.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
You're using two different meanings of the word harboring. The terrorists lived in the US for four years, without US knowledge.
Ahh, I get it now. It's all becoming clear.
NEWS FLASH
Osama bin Laden WAS TRAINED AND SUPPLIED BY THE U.S. Figure that one out, genius.
It's one thing to have a murderer hiding without your knowledge in your basement. It's quite another thing to hide the murderer in your basement with intent.
You're right. And it's quite another thing entirely to call him a 'useful ally' when he's your puppet, and a 'murderer' when you stop supporting him and he turns on you. He's doing THE SAME THING he did when he was an American ally.
I'm not confused about the meaning of the word 'harbouring.' The only confusion here is you trying to harmonize your image of the government with dissenting facts you hear on the news.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
I didn't misread it, I implied through 'newspeak' that it had been altered. As you said yourself, "If they HAD targetted these on purpose... they would be very unlikely to say so. Instead, they'd obfuscate the truth..." Cnn has reported legitimately, but it alters its articles. Course, how can I prove it? Screenshots? Those can be faked. No way, so they'er pretty safe, now arent' they.
The lesson of the day is don't bite the hand that feeds you.
I'm not condemning the "entire populace" to anything except the fate which they have chosen.
The United States isn't obligated to go and feed and bring peace to every third world area that can't control its breeding and can't control its fighting.
Somalia '93 is a hard lesson on what happens when we try.
The reports of this that I've seen, while technically accurate, are rather misleading. The truth is that the US did NOT shut down these companies. AT&T and British Telecom have shut them down. There is a big difference.
While British Telecom is largely tied to the government there, and thus the British government may have some questions to answer, AT&T is a private company, not part of the US government. They didn't have to shut the gateway down just because the company was on a list that the government put together, but they chose to do so, and AT&T (not the government) is also responsible for the ramifications of these actions.
Let's state this correctly, shall we?:
AT&T and BRITISH TELECOM Shut Down Somalia Internet Access
That's better.
I don't care if you have a flag decal on your car, if you believe that the United States stands for censorship, bullying, military tribunals, and people being dragged away secretly because of their religious beliefs, you are no patriot, you are a traitor.
... then I will stand for Freedom, thank you very much.
Amen to that. I would like to think that, as W keeps saying, America stands for Freedom. I don't want to be "anti-American" or "anti-Freedom". But if they are at odds, and if I have to choose one
As for do I agree with what US did? No, I do not think shutting off telecom access is in the best interest of US and there is a better solution but US is perfectly within their right to do so here.
The problem is, it doesn't matter what *you* think. You don't have a say in the matter anyway. What if you, like most people here it seems like, didn't think that this was the best idea? How is the government acting on your best interest then?
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Holding prisoner thousands of US citizens, even when they've been cleared of charges?
We call that "being detained", and isn't similar to prison camps at all.
Racial profiling? Military tribunals?
Hey, no problem: "We're at war. Everything's changed."
What's next?
Monitoring of private civilian communications?
Hey, you never can tell: that guy down the street just might be part of a terrorist cell.
Besides, we're at war: if he's got nothing to hide, he shouldn't complain.
Maybe we'll require libraries to turn over detailed book histories.
We'll flag the guys that take out certain books that we've deemed "insurrectional" or "unpatriotic" and put them under constant surveillance.
Giving your support to the folks that are over there -- hey wonderful. I'm proud of the people that helped out here, too, with WTC attack. But if you think that there isn't prescient for corruption and deceit with the US Government, then you deserve what you get for being a sheep. Myself, I'm a skeptic: and that means I question both sides of the issue. I like to investigate 'conspiratorial' claims, and official statements, and try to prove them right or wrong. There's a lot of things right out in the open on the public news (official reports, and such) that raise a lot of questions that need to be answered. This is our country, damn it, and people have a right -- no, a duty to question everything. Otherwise, what the hell are we here for? We might as well all live in old folks homes while the nurses come and give us our pills and tell us it's nap time again. Maybe that's your idea of a fun existance, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be forced into it.
Osama bin Laden was trained and supplied by the Pakistani ISI and the Saudi government.
Over 60% of the financing for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan came from the Saudis...not the United States.
The U.S. did funnel significant amounts of cash and hardware into the effort, mainly through the Pakistanis, who subsequently funneled the money and hardware into radical Islamist movements and groups.
Blameless? Hardly. But it is a far cry from pretending that Bin Laden was our golden boy. The CIA never had direct contact with him, and in fact he really did not start to gain any sort of prominence until after the Russians withdrew.
Hmm, I don't find it hard to understand how the U.S. can support someone who is for their cause and reject him when he turns against it.
Ever hear of... Timothy McVeigh?
If a government knows about a "terrorist" attacking or planning attacks against the US, the US had better think of that government as hostile. The Soviets and the US were in the same situation in Afghanistan. If you want to say the US was harboring terrorists, fine. But the fact is that the Soviets and US couldn't escalate to an all out war between the each other so nothing came of it. Now, the US is attacking Afganistan, the Taliban knows about bin Laden's terrorism but is at best ignoring it or at worst, supporting it. Can the US risk attacking Afghanistan? Yes. It's very simple.
The one that says that Jews kidnap babies to murder and suck their blood?
The one that says America is the stooge for the Israeli Jews?
The one that says we are glad that America has been attacked, it makes us happy?
if al qaida shut down all US international internet connections, most telephone lines and destroyed the main money transfer institutes - how long would it take until bush is on the air talking about a terrorist attack?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
1. Country starts to get more laissez faire...
2. Decent but naive govt gets 'restructured' by US Intelligence community so corps can suck resources out of country, or for some other reason
3. Country rebellion, fractures along ethnic lines, gets turned into UN protectorate...
What's wrong is that they have no proof. It is just typical of US hypocracy. I mean what if another country thinks that George Bush supports terrorists, I mean why not his Father certainly supported enough of them, and so decides to bomb the whitehouse. No proof they just think that he probably did. Of course to most people that would sound stupid because it is, but for some reason it is not stupid if it is a third world country or a "communist dictorship". And don't try and tell me that the CIA has proof about these guys in Somalia, you really beleive that when they didn't even have a clue about what was going to happen on September 11? As you Americans would say, give me a break!
Aah, more vague idiocy and non-specific charges How about some details brainiac?
It's like McCarthyism and the hysteria over Communism all over again. The United States makes a claim that someone is a terrorist and then proceeds to oppress their people. Who the hell made them the Policeman of the world? The terrorists did an evil thing, but everyday, I see the U.S. doing more and more evil things, things that go against the freedom, rights and dignity of the human person that they claim to protect, and even against the God they proclaim. What hypocrisy.
Then they wonder why they are hated so much.
No, I think the relative dearth of posts is a result of the fact that it is the day after Thanksgiving here in the States, and many offices are closed today. /.ers are home eating turkey leftovers and playing video games rather than posting at work, I would guess....
follow the links jackass. that post was not vague nor 'non-specific'...
really - did you respond to the correct post? are you on heroin?
How beautiful and original, did you just come up with all this naive crap yourself?
In the real world, however, total cynicism is incredibly destructive because it paralizes our leaders. Ever since Watergate, leaders have increasingly chosen the easy, small issues rather than do anything important and risk the wrath of 'total cynics' like you.
The U.S. has become what its founding fathers fought against. Read the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence and see how many the U.S. has promoted in foreign countries, particularly Palestine and other Muslim countries. Sept 11 may have been the latest "shot heard round the world". One wonders if Bush and company would have rounded up George Washington et. al. on secret evidence without writ of habious corpus like they are doing with Muslims in the U.S. How long till we have to call him King George W?
I'm amazed by the number of American authorities (and civil population) that just forgot what due process means. What's next?
Why bother trying to crash into both buildings? Just drop an engine on the first and crash into the second.
:)
Hell, if you hijack a 747, you've got four engines and a plane to hit targets with. The white house, the pentagon, congress... what else?
We all know Franklin's quote "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."... apparently, while this applies to the US, the Government seemingly cares less in other places.
If you can't make a moral distinction between the events of September 11th and our actions in Afghanistan, you are truly lost.
We are fighting to destroy al-Qaida and those (especially the Taliban) who harbor them. Calling our actions "terrorism" is disgusting.
This war is to ensure the security of our homeland. We didn't start the fighting, they did, right in the heart of New York City!
Wake up people!
As for the Afghan people, a LOT of them are enjoying freedoms that haven't had in FIVE YEARS!
P.S. If you hate the US so much, nobody is forcing you to stay.
P.P.S. I'm not a shill for the US gov't. I have been critical of many of their decisions (DMCA, etc). I do know when it is time to stand together against evil.
P.P.P.S. Oh yeah, when the raids of the ISPs happened right before September 11, I had a feeling that the USA gov't was in the right (a dn did say so right here on Slashdot), even though I am usually a strong civil libertarian. And then September 11 happened.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I really can't believe what is being said here.
The moderation is even worse.
First, we (the USA) are at war. When members of one nation attack another nation, that is an act of war. If you don't think that bin Laden is closely enough associated for us to be at war with the Taliban, then you haven't been reading the news.
Now, lawyers and judges don't run wars. Presidents and generals do. There is no "due process" or "burden of proof" involved. You get the best intell you can, and you make the best decisions you can based on that information. OTHERWISE YOU LOOSE WHILE WORRYING THAT YOU MIGHT MAKE A MISTAKE.
As for Somalia, if you think that the US is "taking away" their access because we don't like them, then perhaps you don't remember that WE SENT TROOPS THERE TO MAKE SURE THEY DIDN'T STARVE, and to try to get them to STOP KILLING EACH OTHER. People who hate Muslims don't sacrifice their own men to try to stop them from killing each other.
Finally, this was about MONEY not about internet access. Do you really think that the "common man" in Somalia has internet access?
To summarize: We are in a war. We are doing the things that must be done in a war. We only hate people who kill our people.
Oh, and on the red cross thing, you can't just paint a red cross (or star, or crescent moon and star) on all of your equipment/supplies/strongholds and then cry foul when someone bombs them. They were "rendering comfort to the enemy" which makes them the enemy by assosciation.
-Peter
I think we're (you're) missing a really quite important point here. As the article said, 80% of people in Somalia need money that comes in to buy food. They will starve without it. Now, when they're sitting, starving to death, who're they going to blame? Osama Bin Laden? The Tal[ie]ban? The local warlords? I doubt it.
They're going to blame the good US of A. The same country that has previous posters saying "We gave them access, now we can take it away". People are going to starve to death. Lots of people. Due to American foreign policy.
If we throw our minds back a few years, what pissed a rich Saudi kid off about the states so much that he decided to wreak havoc on them? Oh yeah! Far-reaching American foreign policy. So, let's starve Somalia, and create one hundred more little bin Ladens. And let's be arrogant and frivilous about it, as we condemn millions to a lingering starving death.
Play with fire, get burned.
Score:-1, Funny
This only shows that Internet is not a free for all, international, uniting network we tend to think it is.
It is often said that the Internet "doesn't have masters", and therefore that no one can shut it down, or do something people don't want to be done.
Heh.
I am a genius; therefore, you suck.
uh...As is explained to every American teenager, driving is a priviledge, not a right. There was and still is freedom without Internet access (are people who don't use the Internet "less free" than those who do? Some may contend that they are "more free."), so how does that change for people who had access and no longer do?
It is SOOOOO funny to read all the bleeding heart whining going on.
Hey children, wake up and smell the coffee. Being a super power means scaring the shit out of your enemies. Corporations as well as countries.
Considering how well Somolia treated us the last time we visited, I could give a fuck about their country and interests.
You drag our soldiers through our streets then expect to find yourselves cut-off when you contact your little terrorist buddies online.
Remember, he who as all the gold, makes the rules !
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm somewhat worried that I couldn't find a definition of "terrorist" in the motion... I mean, what's preventing China from declaring the Taiwanese government "terrorist?" (Remember, they group terrorist and separatists under the same grouping...) or Tibet? Or India and Kashmiri separatists?
-k
yours,
kbs
We are at war.
Here is a company that for whatever reason we think is helping the enemy.
Do we:
A) Ignore the problem and hope it goes away, thereby supporting the communications infrastructure of a country who's people are actively against us?
B) Shut down the connection to that company until the crisis is over, playing it safe rather than sorry.
War's not pretty. If people don't like the USA then they shouldn't be doing business with the USA.
Let's make the example personal.
Pretend I work for a financial company and support five children. I start making loud threats against my boss any my company. At the same time imagine that credit card numbers which I work with are mysteriously appearing on the internet for public use. Do you as a client of the company want me fired, or tolerated?
And it's called a witchhunt. I just love how Bush and the rest of those people have decided to take an already unfortunate event and not only rip apart the rights of their own citizens, but also to terrorize other nations without any justification (as if any justification is possible).
It's also unfortunate that most of us in America are sitting back and saying it's okay for the government to dictate which rights are still acceptable for us to have. Or the fact that teh federal government has successfully managed to sideline due process by implementing a military tribunal for anyone "suspected" of associating with terrorists (and how do we figure _that_ out)
I read that the terrorsts sometime use cars to drive to their meetings. We should stop all oil shipments to the country.
One could presume that terrorists get sick. Stop any medical shipments, less we want to allow those terrorists to remain healthy.
And, when you think about it, those terrorists are crafty devils. They breathe oxygen, a gas created often by plants, just like us. Plants can't grow without sunlight, so lets block all the sunshine allowed into the country.
These may seem harsh to you, but think for a moment, who's side are you on?
The Internet is generally stupid
The US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, is a terrorist.
No he isn't, he just "sponsored" terrorism
But wait, Bush said we don't distinguish betwwen terrorists and those who sponsor them. So I guess you are right.
Which leaves me with this conundrum. What about the people who appoint people who sponsered terrorism to prestigious governmental posts? Do we distinguish between such people and terrorists, or do we not? Ouff, my head is swirling.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Wow, what a change! Going from watching Junkyard wars all today, now I see this...
But, sadly to say, this is what we should have been doing years ago. It seems to me that the Bush administration is watching its steps carefully, and they really won't make a step w/o having something to back them up, but we need to look at this the other way. From what the article said (by a brief skimming), they stated that wired money goes through them. Now, I'm not a person who would know a whole lot about this kind of stuff, but I'm thinking that it wouldn't require too much effort to re-route a small "processing fee" to Bin-Laden. Of course I could be wrong, but these terrorists are fairly crafty- I mean, who would think that an Egyptian Doctor could (possibly, unconfirmed because we can't get spys into Al-Queda thanks to the McDade acts passed by our favorite Bill Clinton) be the head of the terror network that has tons of wackos who are willing to kill themselves for the benifit of thier cause?
Its very hard for me to say this, but I think this what we should have been doing long ago. The US is filled w/ too much politics and people that want to be politically correct and humanitarian. I'm sorry, but this stuff just doesn't work. In order to protect ourselves, WE MUST have an iron fist in dealing with matters that concern homeland security. What people need to realize that the world is not a pretty place, and rarely is there a solution that works out perfectly w/o the need to squash others. Thats life, and there is no way to change it...there is NO SUCH THING as utopia, and we have to live with what we have.
I think the US should declare a "War on arms and ammunition" world wide.
Why don't we shut down every ISP in the U.S.? After all, by today's definition of "terrorist", which includes 12-year-olds who send malformed ping packets, every ISP has been used by terrorists.
And while we're at it, let's turn Boston into a penal colony. Where do you think the IRA gets their money from?
Mi klopodas varbi por Esperanto.
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=14518& SelectRegion=Horn_of_Africa&SelectCountry=SOMALIA
-- Ender, Duke_of_URL
The United States saw that the Humanitaran food aid that we sent to Somalia was
being taken by warlords. So the U.S. decided that in order to get food to the
people that we would put in a military force to make sure the warlords wouldn't
take it for themselves. After one of the US helecopters were shot down and
Americans saw one of their soldiers dragged dead around the streets that our
help was not needed. So what does the world want? According to a lot of the
people on slashdot it would go something like this.
Let Iraq invade Kuwait, rape its women, steal its land and call it the 19th Province of Iraq
who cares right?
Let Serbs and Croats kill each other over a religious war until everybody is dead, those evil Americans are trying to stop that too, what were they thinking.
Oh, some group called Al-Queda just flew two Jets into huge buildings in New York killing thousands of people so I guess America should just sit back and say, oh well.
I guess if we hadn't Liberated Kuwait then Osama wouldn't be mad at us for being on
Muslim soil. Our fault again.
Oh, and its ok for the Taliban to harbor bin laden because bin laden is so nice to them.
A note on representatve democracy:
/. readership is a small segment of the 250million or so people in the US.
You say "The problem is, it doesn't matter what *you* think. You don't have a say in the matter anyway".
Well, it does matter, because if enough 'me's say the same thing, then in a representative democracy (which is what we have here in the US, as opposed to a direct democracy), then our best interest will at least be acknowledged.
You also say "What if you, like most people here it seems like, didn't think that this was the best idea? How is the government acting on your best interest then?"
Please remember that
/. is not the sum total of opinion in the world.
You, bitching alone in the wildernes, will not effect any change. Perhaps if several thousand banded together and bitched in unison as described above, then you may get a result.
There are a lot of reasons to bomb switzerland already. Think nazi gold.
Do a google search before posting.
Take a sedative. Then ask what kind of trash the government of your country does. Then realize that you yourself do not do those things(hopefully) and get off your absurd stereotypes of America as a people.
Yes, our government/military is not the most beneficial and peaceful structure on this planet. But few governments can have either of those words applied to them.
Despite this, the American people are NOT the ones doing the damage you overgeneralize so readily.
Regardless of what our GOVERNMENT may have done, it does not make anyone right or justified in attacking American citizens, just as our government has no right in attacking citizens of any other nation.
Think before you start foaming at the mouth.
If we are ever to spread democracy and more opportunity and well-being throughout the world modern communications is utterly essential. If we can't talk to them, they can't learn of anything from outside and they can't even talk to one another in any modern way, then there is no way their situation can ever improve. Cutting off money coming in is also especially damaging.
In the rush to "do something" about terrorism we are stomping on a lot of rights and a lot of peoples lives. It is not money that makes terror. It is oppression, hatred, hoplessness, and rage. If we really want to cut "funding" to terror we must clean up its true funds by doing what we can to end oppression and to give hope.
We are headed in precisely the wrong direction.
The problem from the beginning has been the US government and media's transformation of the "enemy" from the Bin Laden and the "Al Queda" network to the Taliban. The Taliban did not attack the US. The are (were) a horifically repressive regime that needed to be dealt with a more geopolitically responsible means. Now we read the internet service is being "shut down" by the US in Somalia. I have feared from the begining that this irrational patriotism and redistribution of foreign policy would lead to the wholesale dismantling of rights both here in the US and abroad. I can't help but note the ironic fact that it was the former Bush president who had such difficulties in Somalia and certainly hope there is no real cause and effect between his orginal actions in Somalia and the present Bush's.
The US has defined terrorism as taking illegal acts that may be life threatening for the purpose of coercing or forcing a government to change its policies. Here we are destroying international businesses, seizing assets, pressuring governments with no legal grounds, no trials, no proof. Will the world believe our actions are just? Much of it will not. I don't believe they are just.
Hes right, The US military doesnt do anything out of the kindness of their hearts, Theres always a motive.
Alot of people dont support this war in the USA, then you have people who only partially support it like myself. Giving food to afganstans gets the people who partially support it to not join the people who dont support it at all.
IF i were watching millions of afganastan people die, then i'd be pissed off at my government and at this war, we'd have another vietnam situation.
So what this man said makes sense.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
terrorists dont care about the internet
they will do what they have to do without it like they've been doing
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Fuck the United States of America
..
bunch of asholes, what are you wating for to trow your governement down ?
Pfiu
Osama bin Laden WAS TRAINED AND SUPPLIED BY THE U.S. Figure that one out, genius.
Being trained and supplied by the U.S. means nothing. He wasn't trained to commit terrorism.
And it's quite another thing entirely to call him a 'useful ally' when he's your puppet, and a 'murderer' when you stop supporting him and he turns on you. He's doing THE SAME THING he did when he was an American ally.
How is helping defend a country (Afghanistan) against invasion from another country (the Soviet Union) THE SAME THING as intentionally killing thousands of innocent civilians? Show me evidence that the U.S. was aware of bin Laden intentionally killing innocent civilians and continuing to support him. Even if you do show that it only means the U.S. should admit that mistake and move on, it doesn't mean they should allow others to repeat those mistakes.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
You are uninformed pompous fuck who is too stupid to realize that US constitution has completely different provisions for the time of war or national urgency.
Many, including famous (Lincoln) , presidents did use that provision and there were no long term ill effect on the moral health of this country.
You are one of these folks that can only complain without offering any practical solution.
It was people like you who were bitching about legality of our entrance into World War 2 and overall desire to help Britain.
It is easy to bitch and moan but security of our country is exactly what I want Bush to worry about, that and only that.
Fuck Somalia and others, as long as it is in our long-term interest, go ahead and do it.
guardians? well, maybe dictators.
why not? after all it's Al Gore's invention.
Chart of surveillance law changes
...at a time when public feedback was hampered by the extraordinary anthrax infestations...
Before I didn't believe that the Anthrax might have domestic origins.
Now I'm not so sure.
You're using her as bait, Master!
You're a moron. Ships that dock in Cuba aren't allowed to dock in the States for six months afterwards. What country do you think companies are going to choose, especially if they're travelling across the Atlantic? The reason Canada can trade with Cuba is because they don't give a shit about America's stupid outdated policies of 'fighting communism.' Cuba's in a pretty difficult state right now; medicine and basic supplies are hard to get. Make no mistake though, the people know why, and they don't blame Castro. I can't think of another government in the world that gives you a cake on your birthday. When was the last time your government cared about your birthday, except when you come of age and can become a TAXPAYER.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
"Osama bin Laden WAS TRAINED AND SUPPLIED BY THE U.S."
So was Timothy McVeigh.
Did you have a point you wanted to make?
Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that Congress must declare war.
The powers of Congress over the military and military actions are defined in Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power to [...]
To Declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The Authority of the President as Commander in Chief are defined in Article II, Section 2:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
To summarize the above articles, Congress establishes, maintains, and regulates the military. The President determines how, when, and where will military force be applied.
When the Consitution was written in the 1700's, armed conflicts were rigidly defined, where the the combatants consisted of formally recognized governments. In such an environment a Declaration of War made perfect sense. This system worked fairly well until the Second World War, which was the last time the United States formally declared war..
The tradition context of war was challenged with the rise of the Cold War and modern warfare techniques such as guerrillas, proxy wars, and non-state combatants. As armed conflict evolved, the US government had to address the issue. In 1973 the War Powers Act (WPA) was passed to address these issues. The primary reason for this act was to establish limits on the Commander in Chief's ability to use force without the formal consent of Congress, as exemplified by the Vietnam War. The WPA allows the President to commit military actions without a declaration of war, as long as certain reporting conditions to Congress are met. The heart of the WPA is Section 5 (b), which establishes concrete time limits, and Section 5 (c), which gives Congress the authority to terminate military action.
________________________
None of the words or meaning in the Constitution has changed, either. It still guarantees Justice to All. This includes a fair trial, just as much as it includes the lethal injection as punishment.
The fundamental question here is do we treat acts of terrorism as a crime or as an act of war? The various rights to trial enumerated in Section III and the Bill of Rights apply only to crimes. By history and precedent, acts of war are not treated the same as criminal acts. For example, the Nuremberg Trials were military tribunals with convictions determined by a panel of judges, not juries. Similar tribunals were called for the Japanese military and government, instead of trying them in US criminal courts for the attack on US territory (Pearl Harbor)
The US has been consistent in treating the attacks of September 11th as a military action, not criminal, to include the application of military courts to eventually try Al Qaeda members. This is no different than the application of justice at the end of WWII.
The late Peter "Maas" (died Aug. 24) wrote a scathing review of "Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover" -- a book in which journalist Anthony Summers blows the lid off of Meyer Lansky's blackmail hold over the longest-running head of federal law enforcement in history. "Peter Maas" also wrote a cover article for "Parade" magazine on "The New CIA" featuring a cover photo of his blonde concubine smiling like a zombie while John Deutsch looked on with great unction -- the article basically being about how the old WASP establishment in the intelligence community had created a disaster which was being cleaned up by the "new blood".
Now Peter "Maass" (www.petermass.com) is telling those of us with money to move to Somalia -- apprently a hotbed of CIA and Al-Qaeda activity:
Ayn Rand Comes to Somalia [by Peter Maass, from The Atlantic Monthly]
May 2001, from MOGADISHU
Ayn Rand Comes to Somalia
In the absence of government bureaucracy and foreign aid, business is starting to boom
by Peter Maass
The headquarters of Telecom Somalia is filled with the sights and sounds of Mogadishu-style success. Customers pour through the entrance, funneling past machine-gun positions that flank the front doors. After a pat-down by security guards, who take temporary possession of any guns and knives, they enter the lobby and line up at the appropriate counters to pay their bills or order new service. Clocks on a wall display the time in New York, Paris, London, Sydney, and Karachi--reminders of an outside world that has pretty much left Somalia for dead. Computer keyboards clatter as workers punch in information. Customers chat and argue with one another in a gregarious manner that makes the lobby feel like a town square--all the more so if a goat that's being herded down the street happens to stray inside.
Telecom Somalia is the largest company in Mogadishu. It has 700 employees, and it offers some of the best and cheapest phone service in Africa. It also provides a clue to the possible resuscitation of the world's most famous failed state. In 1995, when the international community decided to wash its hands of Somalia and the last United Nations peacekeepers left the country, Mogadishu was a Hobbesian horror show. It remains a miserable and unstable place, a city where taxi drivers ruin their own vehicles, denting the body work and smashing the windows, so that thieves will not bother to steal them. But it is less dismal than it used to be, and better times may be on the way, owing to a new generation of businessmen who are determined to bring the lawless capital back to life.
Prime among the city's entrepreneurial leaders is Abdulaziz Sheikh, t he chief executive of Telecom Somalia. When I visited him last summer, in a small office on the fourth floor of the company's headquarters, he was being blasted by a hurricane-force air- conditioner that nearly drowned out the constantly ringing phones on his desk. "You need to be here twenty-four hours a day," he said, explaining that he lives as well as works on the premises. Sheikh had the running-on-fumes look of a campaign chairman in a never-ending race, but at least he appeared to be winning. Anyone can walk into the lobby of his building, plunk down a $100 deposit, and leave with a late-model Nokia that works throughout the city, in valleys as well as on hilltops, at all hours. Caller ID, call waiting, conference calling, and call forwarding are available. There are two other cellular-phone firms in town, and the three recently entered into a joint venture and created the first local Internet-service provider. Not all battles here are resolved by murder.
Mogadishu also has new radio and television stations (one night I watched the Somali equivalent of Larry King Live, in which the moderator and his guest, one of the city's leading Islamic clerics, fielded questions from callers), along with computer schools and an airport that serves several airlines (although these fly the sorts of airplanes that Americans see only in museums). The city's Bekara market offers everything from toilet paper, Maalox, and Colgate toothpaste to Viagra, sarongs, blank passports (stolen from the Foreign Ministry a decade ago), and assault rifles. The international delivery company DHL has an office in Mogadishu, where its methods can be unorthodox: if a client has an urgent package that cannot wait for a scheduled flight out of the country, the company will dispatch it on one of the many planes that arrive illegally from Kenya every day bearing khat, a narcotic leaf that is chewed like tobacco but has the effect of cocaine.
Mogadishu has the closest thing to an Ayn Rand-style economy that the world has ever seen--no bureaucracy or regulation at all. The city has had no government since 1991, when the much despised President Mohammed Siad Barre was overthrown; his regime was replaced not by another one but by civil war. The northern regions of Somaliland and Puntland have stabilized under autonomous governments, but southern Somalia, with Mogadishu at its core, has remained a Mad Max zone carved up by warlords for whom fighting seems as necessary as oxygen. The prospect of stability is a curious miracle, not simply because the kind of business development that is happening tends to require the presence of a government, but because the very absence of a government may have helped to nurture an African oddity--a lean and efficient business sector that does not feed at a public trough controlled by corrupt officials. ...Many of the larger companies in Mogadishu, including the bottling
plant, have issued shares, although there is of course no stock
exchange or financial authority of any sort in the city. Everything
is based on trust, and so far it has worked, owing to Somalia's
tightly woven clan networks: everyone knows everyone else, so it's
less likely that an unknown con man will pull off a scam. In view of
Somalia's history, this ad hoc stock market is not as implausible as
it may sound. Until a century ago, when Italy and Britain divided
what is present-day Somalia into colonial fiefdoms, Somalis got along
quite well without a state, relying on systems that still exist:
informal codes of honor and a means of resolving disputes, even
violent ones, through mediation by clan elders.
Of course, the lack of a government poses problems, especially with respect to the warlords. Sheikh and his fellow businessmen have kept them at bay by paying them protection money and by forming their own militias. Those manning the machine guns outside Telecom Somalia are employees of the company, and when the firm's linemen go out to lay new cables (they used to string overhead lines, but those got shot up by stray gunfire), they, too, are protected by company gunmen.
All of this is costly, so the business leaders have taken steps to bring about a new government--one that will keep its hands out of their pockets and focus on providing security and public services. The process began two years ago, when Sheikh and other entrepreneurs got fed up with the blight of checkpoints, at which everyone was required to pay small tributes to armed teenagers affiliated with various warlords. The businessmen decided collectively to fund a militia to get rid of the checkpoints, resulting in an armed force that is overseen by the city's Islamic clerics. Having succeeded in its main mission, the militia now serves as an informal sort of police force, patrolling the streets in an effort to stop petty crime.
Seastead this.
They can probably get an alternative link through somebody who doesn't get along with the U.S. Cuba had a long history of connectivity problems during the years when the U.S. embargo was taken seriously. But phone connectivity stayed up most of the time.
But I can point you to this statement at the Red Cross of Australia web site.
/ IC RCStatement3.html
http://www.redcross.org.au/newsRoom/afghanistan
Note that the plane was at low altitude, low speed, dropped bombs on buildings clearly marked on their roofs as Red Cross buildings and that * The Red Cross previously contacted the US to inform them that these were legitimate Red Cross buildings and what their actual contents were.*
Looks pretty damned deliberate to me.
KFG
Bomb the US
Think of IBM. They made a fortune selling the punch-card-computers that enabled the Nazis to administer the killing of millions.
Think of General Motors. Their daughter Opel built the military truck Opel Blitz. It was the backbone of german transportation
Bomb the US.
Oh, sorry. As long as the american industry earns money by supporting crimes, it's ok.
Jealous of your superiors, I take it?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I live in downtown New York. A few thousand of my neighbors were killed a couple of months ago. By my definition, they were innocent people.
You are my neighbors too.
The people who killed my neighbors, and their supporters, share a common belief that we are an insult to God, an insult to the earth, and an insult to the "good" people of this earth. There appear to be a few thousand people around the world today who are willing to violently remove us from this earth, and a few hundred million who think that wouldn't be such a terrible thing.
For those of you neighbors who seek greater mutual understanding, please take more time to realize that your non-Muslim, Western thinking is offensive, and when people speak of "American arrogance," they are referring to your inability to realize the inferiority of your way of life.
We, our government, your government, are engaged now in a war; a struggle to eradicate the people who would eradicate us: me and you, my neighbors. Our motive for war is preservation of our lives, our hopes, our optimistic future. It is not hatred. It is not money. Your beliefs to the contrary reflect your own cynicism and lack of appreciation for the degree of humanity that we share: me, our government, and you, my neighbors.
Your concern for the innocent people of Somalia is reasonable. Your doubts about how genuine is our reasoning for cutting off their internet access is not.
Come on down to New York and visit us for a day, neighbor. Come join me in savoring the pain of the tens of thousands of relatives and friends of our dead neighbors. And please, don't pretend you're not one of the people who should be dead, because that's just your American arrogance rearing its ugly head.
There will be victims in this war, neighbors. I don't want it to be an innocent Somali. But I don't want it to be me either. And so, I choose to fight those who would kill me, who would kill you, my neighbors. And I seek solace in personal prayer, that I may be forgiven for choosing life, regretting that innocents will die as a result, but rejoicing in celebration of life with my neighbors.
To the Somali people, I apologize. But to you, neighbor, I make no apologies. I, we, the greater America, will defend you with no limit to our efforts, and you, my neighbor, must suffer this.
<bart
One good lead before 9/11 ... even an inkling of what might have been planned ... and we'd probably have 19 terrorists behind bars right now, instead of thousands dead and billions in damage... *sigh*
What are you, a dot communist? If the U.S. decides to revoke public access to the GPS system, it's their right. If you were to run a free public wireless network, you have the right to revoke anybody (or everybody's) access whenever you want. The United States doesn't owe anybody nuthin'.
The same old Kan but with a more
appealing lable.
Sept 11th showed CNN's true colours quite well. CBC did a little better, but still, some change. BBC was the best by far.
Legally, we are not at war and haven't been since 1945.
That is the fault of our gutless Congress who should have immediately declared war on Afghanastan as soon as it was evident that the Taliban was harboring the leader of the group that destroyed 4000 lives and countless American families.
If war had been declared we wouldn't be discussing this on Slashdot or any other forum because civillian use of the internet and other communications media would have been curtailed, just like it was during both World Wars.
Freedoms end for the duration of a declared war and return when peace comes.
Very true, considering how the Romans successfully conducted policies of defensive aggression , where anyone who doesn't submit is instantly a threat. Just ask the Gauls, or Visigoths, or anyone else the Romans crushed in the name of self defense.
Wanna rewrite history so that Nazi Germany never existed? Just flood all forms of media with info about the wonderful 'Nazi' pastry, with its oh-so-gooy caramel filling, and its oh-so-rich glazed topping. After a few months of this, all mentions of 'Nazi' found throughout searches on google will turn up with this Newspeak, whereas the truth will regress into the corners of obscurity.
If the US really wants to win this "war" they better start working with the people that hate them rather then pushing them around.
Nobody likes a bully.
Have you ever wondered how many poeple died as a direct cause of US foreign policies? were talking thousands too.
Let these poor people have their internet. If you want terrorists go in there and get them!
"If a show of teeth is not enough, bite
How about worrying about anti humanism.
We all know what nationalism can do for
one's ability to use his head and not
his emotions. We also know how little
true progress nationalism has brought
us as a species.
He was trained in unconventional warfare. The original purpose was so he could 'terrorise' the Soviet occupational troops. Why do you think it's called 'unconventional'?
Somalia was cut off because their gateways decided to no longer route traffic to them. This is their prerogative. If you want somalia to have internet access, go lay some cable.
In the case of Iraq, I've heard that most neighbors simply want to do away with the embargo, believing that Saddam has the potential to see the error of his ways. The problem is that Kuwait may (I can't confirm as I heard this in a passing moment from the news) have lobbyists convincing Congress to put pressure to oust Saddam. Another possibility is that the US government needs a boogeyman in every corner of the planet, so to play the savior to smaller countries. And when you save them, they OWE YOU BIG TIME.
Yes,but the real heart of his post isn't "feed them". It's that peace can be achieved through "good" acts. Grassroot acts. Not grandiose acts by governments. If we all lived our lives by "example" instead of words, this planet would be much, much better.
Read it slow so it sinks in:
There is a difference between purposely targeting civilians for the purpose of terrorizing a population, and accidentally inflicting civilian casualties when attacking military targets.
The WTC bombings are also a scale of magnitude greater than the civilian deaths caused by U.S. bombs in Afghanistan.
There is also the consideration that generally we in the U.S. feel bad about the civilian deaths, while the Islamists have been gleefully ecstatic.
A difference? Maybe not to you, but to me there is a huge difference.
Plus, there is the incy bitty point of that we were attacked, and we have the right to defend ourselves.
While the two-faced US Government, first bombing the Red Cross for *suspected* pilfering of food to Taliban members is funny, that's only because they then threw food around at random throughout the country at the same time, in far smaller quantities, which could more easily be accidentally stumbled upon by Taliban forces. Some aid packages were, of course, also dropped in well-known minefields. What a knee-slapper, imagining all those starving people waving back to the relief jets with their stumps!
What *isn't* funny, however, is how we in the West and other Allied Countries(tm)(r) are on the side of the bad guys in this conflict. The US has cut out an entire country's Internet access because of *suspected* terrorist conntections. A country which they have bombed over and over again during the recent civil war. Now they have taken care of any free exchange of ideas and news from one private citizen to another, if not locally than internationally, where it counts.
The acts of terrorism by the United States will have just as much a positive effect on their victims as Bin Laden's attacks and threatened attacks have had on our own.
Someday soon I hope at least a few Allied Countries (hopefully even Canada, cuz I live here) take a step back and realize that the United States has only as much Big Swinging Dick power as we allow them to have, and take a more neutral, peacemaking stance in this conflict.
Wait a minute, isn't there already an organization dedicated to providing such a Global perspective? The United Notions or something... eh, I must be mistaken.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
This is not like fighting any nation state, or even a rebel group. This fight is very similar to the way we dealt with the Mafia. Which means we must be ruthless and do things that we might not feel totally perky about. If any of you ass clowns want to see what Somalia is like go read Black Hawk Down by mark bowden. I bet the total customer base of that ISP is below 20,000. Anothet thing, how do we not know it wasnt started by Osama bin Laden backing or investment? Or that when Osama sent his ppl to train Aidid's men back in 93 that they didnt start it up then to "educate" the ppl about proper fundamentalist islam. This is not a perfect world, adn we as a nation to protect our ppl and national security are going to have to break a lot of egg shells on the way. Both abroad and stuff here at home. This is a small speck on the map. And whoever said that we should be skeptics is a smart man, but at this point, the 3000+ ppl dead in downtown manhattan makes me lose a lot of cynicism I usually have for operations and other things my government and nation do. At this point it is US or them, and yah know what I dont care about them as much as I once might have. I dotn wanan be working in downtown dallas and be incinerated in a nuclear blast. If to prevent that from happening means taking down some POS ISP in Somalia so be it.
Sophal's Place (no longer available)
Sophal Ear is a remarkable young Cambodian scholar who lived to tell the world about the horrors of Pol Pot's regime. His webpage is full of information on the "Cambodian Auto-Genocide," along with studies of the Cambodian economy, some of his favorite quotations, and links to his favorite sites. But perhaps the most interesting feature on this page is Sophal's exhaustive study of Western intellectuals' response to Pol Pot's regime. Is there really a leftist double-standard that overlooks any crime committed with socialist intentions? After reading Sophal's paper, there can be little doubt. Particularly valuable is Sophal's analysis of Noam Chomsky's writings on Cambodia and the Western media. Chomsky's critics have accused him of apologizing for mass murder; his defenders have replied that Chomsky did nothing of the kind. The truth, Sophal argues, is that Chomsky was a kind of apologist-by-stealth -- who doggedly attacked any errors in Western coverage of Cambodia while refraining from commenting on the basic fact that over a million Cambodians had been murdered. Chomsky's charges of (right-wing) media bias simply don't withstand examination, Sophal notes, for numerically small human rights abuses in U.S.-allied South Korea and Chile got far more media attention than Cambodia. Careful study of this site will make you wonder not only at the capacity of the State for senseless brutality, but of the recurring capacity of Western intellectuals to defend senseless brutality as a high virtue.
Reading this thread I find myself confused. I find it hard to believe some of you live in the same country as myself...
Who is the wise scholar that defined terrorism? Hmmm, you can keep your definition, because if you think about it from a little more objective position, you will realise you missed a key concept - provocation. Our attacks on Afghanistan are wholly justified because we were provoked by a cowardly enemy that intentionally targeted innocents. When our bombs kill innocents it is very sad, but we typically pay the families reparation, and rebuild the nation we've defeated.
You are granted freedoms in this country, but walk softly. Please think before you abuse the freedoms that others are so valiantly protecting in your place. What I'm really saying is shut your cake hole. Part of wisdom is having something to say, and knowing when not to say it.
regards...
Hmm..okay, yes, there are terrorists in Somalia. There are terrorists everywhere. If that's the only ISP they have, then gee, wonder how there could be terrorist links to it...
[insert witty comment here]
I find it a bit sad that the general tone of the postings on this thread seems to represent a level of jingoistic hysteria which we only seem to hear from the US and other third-world countries :-), and general approval of any action taken against other nations on the most circumstantial evidence.
At the same time, we hear loud squeals of protest when governments or industry bodies encroach on our personal liberties (privacy online, copy-protected CDs, etc etc...).
With so much of these terrorism-laws bashing here, some lamer will come and accuse Slashdot of HARBOURING TERRORISTS by allowing Anonymous Cowards!!!
What if that "-1 Offtopic" post with unreadable meaningless junk was ACTUALLY Mr. Osma Bin Laden and friends posting an encrypted document???
Yes, they were using Slashdot to communicate with the hijackers, you knew that didn't you?
Don't quote me on this.
You didn't know? The USA is the over-exaggeration of the school bully. Except now the school bully has a hall monitor pass.
No good can come of this.
*We* created the massively booming global economy, *we* created the technology that these companies have been using, *we* provided their internet access, *we* provided the financial support to the entire country that allowed these businesses to exist...
Could you please define *we* and state what your role was in those actions. Or is *we* your way of saying you have American genes and therefore are a superior being?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
whether we like it or not!
Really. I just remember that the US government gave some american companies a part of the spectrum and when they wanted to take it away they couldn't.
We live in a civilization full of laws that protect the weak against arbitrary decisions from the strong. So you can not take it away unless you place them outside the law.
Somebody mod this AC up! :-)
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
This isn't about punishment. It is about intimidating the rest of the Arab world. Somalia is just the perfect scapegoat: uncle Sam had some scores to settle there anyway.
If you read the US Government info you will see:
"-- Al Barakaat's founder, Shaykh Ahme Nur Jimale, is closely linked to Usama bin Laden. He has used Al Barakaat's 60 offices in Somalia and 127 offices abroad to transmit funds, intelligence and instructions to terrorist cells.".
Sounds to be me like ATT and the Western Union are guilty too: they did the same thing.
There is a lot of support for Bin Laden in the Islamic world so I would be surprised if there weren't some homepages that supported Bin Laden. Similarly there is a lot of money collection by radical groups: so the biggest money transfer company will handle some of that money.
The real message from Bush is to all the other Arabic countries: if you allow any supporter of Bin Laden to speak out or to collect money we will get at your throat.
BTW: you are wrong with "the terrorists taking a cut of all transfers". The government report doesn't say anything like that.
Where is the Constitutionally-required declaration of war? If your response is that "this is different" -- then please specify how the Constitution should be amended. Then explain why, given that Congress can amass virtually unanimous support for various pieces of legislation of highly-questionable Constitutionality, they cannot amend the Constitution so as to act lawfully?
Until you do so, I suggest that you, and those like you, should get over yourselves and recognize that the so-called "government" of the United States of America is not legitimate and, indeed, has not been legitimate for some time.
Seastead this.
I honestly think this story falls under "YOUR RIGHTS ONLINE" category.
See again how human rights are so easily taken away, by a government.
From what I've seen so far, it looks more to me, that it was the usage of those old B-52 bomber, which finally made the Taliban collapse, not those high precision weapons. Just the enormous payload of these old machines....
Michael
Try searching for the article and click the "cache" link?
You're off by just a smidgen--it's not because we're self-righteous, it's because we are self-absorbed. (Ok, well, to be accurate, what you are describing may be how we are perceived by the recipients of these injustices, but I don't think it's the real root cause).
It's not because we think we can do whatever we want, it's because we unthinkingly let a few special interest groups do whatever they want.
The problem is not the actions of a few--their actions are a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is the apathy and inattention of the many.
The average American actually will get up in arms about injustice and unjust policies once they are actually confronted wtih them. The thing that is sick and wrong about America is that we do not know what is going on "out there" in the rest of the world, what our elected officials/military/whoever are doing and how it affects people.
Don't blame the politicians or the media or whoever else, because every one of those groups is at the mercy of the voters and consumers. If America does wrong abroad, there is exactly one group of people to blame for it, and that is the American people. If they cared, they could stop it. Heck, if they cared enough to find out what is going on, what they found out would make them care enough to stop it! But they don't even care that much. And they don't even notice that they don't care--just as, for example, I almost never notice that I don't care about professional sports. Every once in a while it gets thrown in my face and I remember that, oh, yeah, a lot of people actually care who wins those games, etc. But the injustices we perpetuate almost nver get thrown in anyone's face. So most people don't even realize that they aren't paying attention.
Don't just write your congressman, poke your neighbor a little and see if you can get them to wake up from their dream of sitcoms and ball games.
PS The same goes for the RIAA and Microsoft, the evil empires built from--you guessed it--consumer dollars, spent by masses of people that just don't bother to find out if they should care.
Liberty uber alles.
Bluntly, what you're offended by isn't the definition, but by the unpleasant truth that an objective reading of what terrorism is sometimes condemns the good guys, too.
You're getting a lot of flak for this, but it's essentially true. By the given definition of terrorism, many of the acts of the U.S. have been and continue to be terrorism. By that same definition, many of the acts of the police in every country in the world are terrorism. It is true that people are uncomfortable with that.
We're saying that two wrongs don't make a right.
Here is where you start to lose it. Once you start talking about "wrong" and "right," you immediately lose any credibility that you care at all about objective definitions. Objective definitions say nothing about these concepts. Ideas of right and wrong are connotations of these words. They may be in some definitions, but not in any remotely objective ones.
Consider the pair of words "aggressive" and "assertive." Objectively, they mean exactly the same thing. However, people use "aggressive" when they disapprove and "assertive" when they approve.
The question of whether something is right or wrong is inherently and necessarily a result of evaluating it in context. If I shoot someone who is trying to kill me, is that homicide? By any objective definition of "homicide," of course it is. Is it something I would feel bad about? Not at all. Is it something I would get in trouble with the law over? Well, I'm sure there would be an investigation, but in most states of the U.S. I would not be charged with a crime.
I don't think that "War on Terrorism" is a particularly good or accurate term. However, at least it's close. Your practice of jumping back and forth between supposedly objective definitions and moralism in an ad hoc fashion, on the other hand, is not even approximately appropriate for rational discourse.
And we're saying that if we're going to set a moral example for the rest of the world--and it's not American arrogance to say that given our position as the only superpower, we damn well better be willing to set that example--we've got to be moral.
This leads to the question of whether "we" want to set a moral standard. Right now, I don't think "we" do. I think "we've" just had it up to here.
Specifically, I think the prevailing attitude is that we have tried to set a moral standard since the end of World War II. We rebuilt Germany and Japan to economically powerful states. When Israel got its birth certificate from the U.N., Truman kept Israel at arms' length. The French were the biggest ally. After the French encouraged Israel to invade Egypt, Eisenhower got them out. Still, the French were their biggest allies until 1967, when Israel had some more imperial fun. We took over that role and have been trying to keep them on a leash ever since. When there was a revolution in Iran, we dropped support for the Shah. When Iran kept many Americans hostage, we did little but crash a couple of our own helicopters. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we repulsed Iraq at Kuwait's request with Saudi Arabia's help. When that was done, we got out, even though it would have been to our advantage to overwhelm Iraq when we could. We statined troops in Saudi Arabia because they asked us to. We put up with one bomb in the World Trade Center, the killing of 18 soldiers in Somalia, and attacks on a number of embassies and ships, for all of which bin Laden explicitly claimed credit. We've gone to Herculean efforts to establish a Palestinian state in the Middle East, only to see Arafat and the various people who have been in charge of Israel stomp off in a fit of pique.
Any reasonable "objective" view of U.S. actions is that we have, usually reluctantly, tried to straighten out intractable messes caused by others (in my view, usually the French).
However, for all that time, leftists have gone through U.S. actions with a magnifying glass to find nuggets that they can throw out and say, "Ha-ha! The U.S. does Bad Things!" They always find them, of course. Some of these were really bad, like the bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant. Most of them, however, are due to the fact that you can't go into a place where people have been hating and killing each other for thousands of years and make it into a land of happy bunny rabbits.
All these "criticisms" missed the point that if the U.S. had not been a factor, things would unquestionably been worse than they are today. If the French had been left a dominant force, most of the ancestors of those people who danced when they heard of the WTC bombings would probably have been radioactive cinders by about 1980.
I think the prevailing view is that the meliorist, moderate, moral approach that the U.S. had taken (with some deviations from perfection in an impossible situation) did not work. September 11 sent us a message about peacemaking, just like World War I sent us a message about isolationism. Some sickos drove some planes into the WTC, and we've just simply had enough. September 11 was the moment in the Warner Brothers' cartoons where Bugs says, "Of course, you know, this means war."
One question is whether this view or response is justifiable (whether or not it is moral). For a few weeks after September 11, I didn't think it was. The leftist gadflies have gone a long way toward persuading me that it is, with their empty, revisionist, and opportunistic rhetoric. Before September 11, I could listen to Noam Chomsky with a straight face and some sympathy. Immediately after, I was only concerned with rebuilding, which is why I went to New York City and helped with the efforts. I agreed with the posters that said "Our grief is not a cry for war."
However, what has been coming out of the left in the weeks since then has been so obviously vapid that it is prima facie evidence that they do not know what they are talking about, at all. As much as I have traditionally disliked the right, it is only the right that acknowledges any of the basic history of the current situation in the Middle East, some of which I know personally because I grew up during it and did my own research. The left may come across as more appealing and idealistic and compassionate (when it isn't just winning debate points for being nasty), but any evidence of actual thought on the left is asymptotically approaching zero.
Nor is there any evidence that they care, at all. There are even Derrida and the postmodernists to tell them that facts don't exist, and opinions are all. This homo fecit used to be merely irritating and amusing; now it is deadly.
You can talk all you want about bad things America has done. I believe in free speech. When people aren't scared witless any more of going to New York, you might get a sympathetic audience that doesn't entirely consist of doped-up morons who are pissed off that their daddies don't give them enough money. Until then, sorry.
Ick. I thought that a nice condition of Afghanistan's surrender might be that they'd have to provide unfiltered internet access in public schools and libraries everywhere (yeah, that means we'd have to help them build such institutions. Which wouldn't suck). That'd do more to reduce terrorism than anything else I can think of. Seems that my views are not the views of my duly elected officials. As usual.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Everytime these anti-american flamers get a chance they jump,these same creeps wouldn't have the gonads to fight for this country because they are spineless,gutless assh&5es whose only contribution is to look for anything they can to disrepect
this country...they wouldn't protect their own mothers if they were being beaten up let alone the
very country that they harbor so much resentment for..they are the low-lifes,the weak..the clueless!
USA: stands for U Suck Ass
mod me down,eh? /. cafe is not the sum total of human experience and opinion?
:o)
guess you don't like it being said that the cozy little
Or maybe you thought I was off topic
If you're right, then the attack on 9/11 (insofar as it is bringing awareness of the world's grievances to US citizens) is a winning strategy in the long term for those who sponsored it, and we *must* therefore expect more attacks.
Incorrect. The awareness of the grievances is only beneficial if they do not cause the US citizens to become defensive.
A single mature cedar tree can support a man for a year.
How? The wood?
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu