Slashdot Mirror


Web Site Hacks Rise as War Rages in Iraq

An anonymous reader noted a Reuters news story talking about Website Defacement during the war. Apparently protesters and hackers are defacing hundreds of US and UK sites, both corporate and government.

83 of 660 comments (clear)

  1. Seems to follow every war... by Bluetrust25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I remember this also happening during the war in Yugoslavia a few years back.

    1. Re:Seems to follow every war... by shawnseat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reason some of us "hippies" are deeply concerned about this war is that the priorities of this Administration are exactly opposite to what you are talking about. If their real aim was to stop all the sanctions the US/UN imposed by overthrowing Saddam Hussein (thus saving face for the US and UN and restoring clean water to Iraq), they would've said that at the beginning. In fact, they tried every other idea under the sun (including the Bizarro-world idea that Saddam, a militantly secular leader, was in league with Osama bin Laden) before pleading for the relief of the suffering of the Shi`a (and, to a much lesser extent, the Kurds). They honestly don't give a flying damn about either group -- they want to extend US hegemony and establish a launching point for a potential two-front invasion of Iran.

      --
      Religion is the opiate of the masses. The wealthy smoke the real stuff.
    2. Re:Seems to follow every war... by AoT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you're for war against turkey as well? They've been much worse to the kurds than Iraq has. And I'm sure they all would be immensley happy if saddam were overthrown... By iraqis. As it stands now we will be an occupying power, and we all know how well that is working for Israel, there's no more terrorism there. Right?

  2. news sites are all safe by EvilStein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    nobody can get to them anyway, they're too busy sucking bandwidth with Flash ads saying "WAR!" and streaming RealMedia. Heh.

    At least after Sept 11, news agencies went to static HTML versions of their news sites.

    The less fluff, the better. We just want the friggin news.

    how many of these hack attacks are exploiting known issues?

    1. Re:news sites are all safe by w1r3sp33d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "lynx www.cnn.com" and I have no fluff!

  3. Re:Protestors by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Perhaps, if we can't explain why we're at war, we shouldn't be at war?

  4. And the point is? by wizardmax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All this does is make other hackers/crackers/what ever look bad. It will not convert people. It will just piss them off.

    --


    Free speech is getting expensive...
    1. Re:And the point is? by panaceaa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with you. The same thing is true regarding the protests yesterday in San Francisco. Most people who live in San Francisco are against the war already. So the protesters come and block intersections and prevent exit off of the interchanges?? The purpose of protests should be to convert people, not piss off people who already believe the same way you do. Unfortunately, this stuff makes national news... so they continue their behavior today.

    2. Re:And the point is? by Mad+Quacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      76% of americans also think Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. Don't be proud of the failure of free press and democracy.

      --
      "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
    3. Re:And the point is? by robi2106 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I love (note sarcasm) how in the very country these anti-war people seek to save, they would be killed, tortured, or raped for the very actions they do to try to save it.

      Do they not see the irony?

      robi

    4. Re:And the point is? by Kombat · · Score: 2, Insightful
      76% of Americans approve of the war

      That is a LIE, though to your credit, an oft-repeated one. I guess I can forgive you, as even a few of the less credible news sources have parrotted it as out-of-context as you just did.

      The actual stat you are referring to claims that 76% of Americans "agree that Iraq is a threat to the United States." Fewer than 45% support the open war with Iraq that Dubya has delivered. In case your mind is even remotely open, why don't you ask yourself "if 76% of Americans feel Iraq is a threat to the US, then how many feel that North Korea is also a threat?" And if being a "threat" is enough to justify invasion of Iraq, then shouldn't it also be enough to justify invasion of North Korea?

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    5. Re:And the point is? by anotherone · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I just heard the 76% number on MSNBC about a half hour before I posted that, and it said "approve of the war", not "agree that iraq is a threat." A search on google revealed several similar numbers: 62%, 70%, 72%, another vote for 72%, 76% (note that it says in no unclear terms that "76% approve of President Bush's decision to attack").

      Perhaps you have a credible source that claims the numbers are lower?

      --
      Username taken, please choose another one.
    6. Re:And the point is? by Yokaze · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >but the protesters want to make it seem like they are the majority rather than a (shrinking) minority.

      No, they want to be noticed. This is a little bit complicated, sitting at home, while the news sources are busy reporting on govermental press releases, interviewing military personal, sending live and directly from the front, and showing the bombing of Baghdad.

      They hope, that likeminded people will follow their steps.
      I don't want to escelate the discussion about the justness of the various wars, but how many people were against the war in Viêtnam at first? How did that change?

      >76% of Americans approve of the war

      Well, there are psychological reasons for that.
      Most people have a bad feeling about demonstrating against a war, their soldiers are fighting in.
      Or do you see any specific reason that convinced them suddenly to wage a war?

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    7. Re:And the point is? by tres · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not about the country. It's about being a member of the world community. Iraq is a soverign nation. now that the bush administration has bumbled its way across the ideal of sovereignty, no nation can feel safe.

      The real irony is that Saddam's bumbling invasion of Kuwait--doing the same exact thing bush is now doing--was the beginning of all this. Nations came together against Iraq because Iraq had jeapordized the sovereignty of all nations by simply deciding to invade a weaker neighbor.

      All those UN resolutions that the bush administration points to as justification for their present action were retribution for Iraq's invasion of another sovereign nation.

      Now that's irony.

      While bush destroys decades of partnerships with other nations like France and Germany, trading those allies for countries like Ethiopia, while bush scuttles the last remaining vestige of authority that the United Nations had, the bush administration tells us that they are doing what is best for 'merika and all us 'merikans.

      Now that's irony.

      The "coallition of convenience" is an irony in itself because somehow the bush administration expects us to believe that a bunch of third-world nations hoping for a handout consitutes support of the international community.

      The real President Bush had the support of the world to enforce the sovereignty of nations. Our bush has had to buy a band of nations to make a rubber-stamp "coallition."

      No one was trying to save Saddam or the government of Iraq. They were asking for diplomacy to be given a chance.

      They were asking for the bush administration to utilize the same restraint that we expect all other nations to use.

      --
      Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
    8. Re:And the point is? by voiceofthewhirlwind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most people who live in San Francisco are against the war already. So the protesters come and block intersections and prevent exit off of the interchanges?? The purpose of protests should be to convert people,

      So the point is then to make it onto the national news, where the case might be the opposite, and people in other cities won't care about traffic being block in someone else's.

      It can't be repeated enough, but massed protests are about a visceral and immediate show of strength, and an attempt to raise concerns with audiences who will see the crowds in person or on the news. It also is empowering for people in less predominantly anti-war areas to see the huge crowds that share their opinion.

      If it makes it onto world news, other countries not so friendly to the U.S. currently may see they have something in common with the regular people here, that we aren't all warmongers.

      It's not, and it shouldn't be, an outright attempt to sway anybody who's already solidly on the other side of the fence.

    9. Re:And the point is? by tres · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You don't seem to be reading, so I'll make it clear: no one has been defending Saddam or the actions the government of Iraq has taken against its citizens. No one.

      The point is that a diplomatic solution was underway. Until diplomacy fails, there is absolutely no reason to use force.
      The point is that force should be the last resort, not the first.
      The point is that you can't expect your neighbors to live by any other standards than the ones you hold for yourself.
      The point is that there are obligations that the United States has to other countries that the bush administration has thumbed its nose at.
      The point is, the UN is the body which has charge in these affaris, not the bush administration. The bush administration has made itself a threat to every other nation on earth.

      Finally, as to your assumption that I'm some kind of French/German/Russian/EU citizen: don't kid yourself. I was born in the US, am a Veteran and am still in the US. I think you might give a second thought to that assumption; to me your anti-otherism is simply rebranded racism/hate.

      --
      Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
    10. Re:And the point is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Many people in some large cities have never left their neighborhoods and don't give a damn about anything beyond the city limits. Polling these people about world politics and geography is about as worthless as tits on a boar.

  5. Re:Protestors by jdkincad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I went to 4 anti-war protests, and no one could explain why we were truely at war.

    Why are you asking people who think the war is unjustified to justify the war?

    --
    The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.
  6. Bias by damiam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone else find it offensive that the author draws a distinction between "protesters" and "patriotic" hackers? They seem to imply that protesting the war would be unpatriotic.

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    1. Re:Bias by ParticleGirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a problem I've seen all over media coverage, as well. I love my country, I support the troops, and I hope that they get home soon and alive. I just wish that the government wouldn't spend their lives so cheaply-- I think that we had not yet come to a point where war was the only answer, and as long as it's not the only answer there are alternatives to be explored. I am anti-war, but I am very patriotic and I definitely support the men and women risking their lives for big issues.

      --
      Do something about world hunger. Click here
    2. Re:Bias by Telastyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absolutely. Also notice that certain public figures that are "unpatriotic" are being unduely harassed for such views?

      The pulling of Martin Sheen's visa commerical come to mind.

      The big stink about Rick Nash's comments at the Mavericks game.

      The Dixie Chicks getting their music pulled from radio stations.

      Locally there's a radio DJ who's ranting on about how protesters deserve shot for hurting America's economy (ignoring the fact that the 'war' will cost (b/m)illions of dollars)

      I'd guess that Vietnam protesters probably were also viewed as unpatriotic at the time (as I was not alive for the war, and history likely has biased things)

    3. Re:Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called a free capitalist market. If people don't like the views of celebs/musicians/whatever, they have just as much right to protest them, and not spend their dollars on their work. Protesting isn't supposed to be an easy thing.

    4. Re:Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Word. Protesters now have learned nothing from the good protesters who did so without going to war (i.e. Ghandi, etc.)

    5. Re:Bias by Oligonicella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Disagree. I am reluctantly pro-this-war, but it is the right of all citizens here to protest, before, during and after. It is unpatriotic to attempt to deprive them of their free speech.

    6. Re:Bias by jonr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dang, if only we had known this during the Vietnam war...

    7. Re:Bias by S.Lemmon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hmm, by that logic you're saying the Germans were right to support Hitler after he invaded Poland?

      Regardless of how you feel about this war, if you feel your government is doing wrong, it's your patriotic duty as a citizen to protest.

    8. Re:Bias by rwsorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm okay with not depriving them of their free speech as long as they don't try to deprive me of my right to use public highways and roads to drive myself to work.

    9. Re:Bias by Daimaou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't harrasment. It is people protesting the protester's stupid point of view in an appropriate and peaceful way (Visa, we won't use your cards unless you pull that idiot Martin Sheen's add).

      You'll notice that nobody went and damaged property or blocked morning traffic to protest Martin Sheen or the Dixie Chicks (Funny how she appologized afterwards isn't it? I guess her resolve wasn't that strong.)

      I think it's funny and interesting how you suggest that defacing public and private property is okay if the protesting matches your opinions, but when people protest the views you agree with, they are "harassing" people.

  7. Other way around? by mrtroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it not the other way around?
    rm -rf all Iraq government sites

    It just doesnt seem like the smartest thing to do, defacing your own national websites. Hey, our troops are fighting for us across the ocean, lets not support them. You voted, your leader chose to go to war, what is your problem?

    Also, hey, our economy is doing poorly, lets deface some corporate sites in a hope they lose millions to lots sales and extra security costs.

    Stupid stupid stupid. If you want to protest a war, have a PEACEFUL protest. Protesting a war by doing illegal and hurtful things is the pot calling the kettle black.

    These people lose all public respect and support by doing stupid, negative things.

    --
    [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
    1. Re:Other way around? by mrtroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um first off Bush is the president. He may not have been "the majority elected president", but by the laws and rules of the US, he is the president.

      I dont live in the US. The article is claiming that americans are protesting this way.

      The war is not "illegal" in the US. Again, I am considering in the US. Outside of the US, its also not "illegal", there have been no court or un proceedings.

      The protestors lost all public respect, they were the ones trying to get a concept across. The Americans have for a long time not been held in very high opinion by the world, this is another issue altogether.

      --
      [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
  8. uh yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And it's always covered up fast and never mentioned like it didn't happen.

    I saw one. They didn't even use any exploit code. They got all the way in and posted a story to the front page just through configuration errors! hahah!

    But unless your lucky enough to catch a glimpse of it before it disappears you will probably not hear much about it. Slashdot likes to cover these sorts of things up. Watch for this to be modded down fast or my ip banned.

    Ever wonder why slashdot fucks up and no one can post or there is a static frontpage etc. ? well that what the aftermath of a defacement looks like.

  9. Uncivil disobedience by Syncdata · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some l33t h4X0R says: "Ohh YeaH BabY...Ur SiTe Has BeeN DeFaceD."
    Believe it or not, Mr L337 has acurately described what he is doing with this "protest". He is defacing public/private property, and that is a crime.
    The protests on the Streets of San Francisco are not "Civil" though they are assuredly disobedient. Sitting outside of a lunch counter, or not taking the bus, that is civil disobedience. Dragging newspaper vending machines into the street to block trafic, or breaking into a server to alter index.htm is illegal.
    Lets remember that words have meanings, and in describing these acts, "Civil" is not an accurate term.

    --
    "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
    1. Re:Uncivil disobedience by Jack+Comics · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I lived in or around San Francisco yesterday, I would have bought a bumper sticker for my car that reads, "So many protestors, so little time."

      IMO, protesting is one thing, so long as it is done in a civil way. It's your right. But what was done in San Francisco yesterday, not to mention several other cities across the nation including Philadelphia, is downright illegal. They should be ashamed of theirselves, and, IMO, are nothing but a disgrace to America. They are just shy of being spit-on worthy. All these so-called "protestors" are doing is occupying the time of the FBI and police forces who could be out preventing terrorism and chasing terrorists, instead of spending their time chasing down little punkish morons putting newsstands out in the middle of the street and blocking access to federal buildings.

      Of course, then again, nothing that happens in San Francisco should surprise me, especially where idiocy is concerned.

      --
      "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:Uncivil disobedience by freejung · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to say, I'm shocked that this sort of blatant flamebait can get an insightful rating from you guys. What has happened to the libertine /. of old, that we can give credence to this sort of immature crap? Protesters, regardless of what you think of their opinions or rhetoric, are trying to get as much attention as they can for their message. This means doing some disruptive things. Threatening to run them over with your car for that seems pretty low to me.

  10. Don't infringe on other people's rights please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't mind if people protest, but do not deface property and infringe on my rights.


    Yesterday, in Boston, protesters sat down and blocked the Mass Ave Bridge, a major 4 way bridge. They also blocked people from getting to work at the Boston Stock Exchange and government buildings. Why prevent people from getting into work that have nothing to do with the war? Let them earn their living. What if an ambulance or emergency crew need to get over the bridge? Why are you drawing our police away from homeland security issues?



    I have also seen a lot of graffitti- notably defacing of said Mass Ave Bridge with permanent spray paint. I have also seen private business buildings hit with the "no war" graffitti. I think some protesters are just in it to get on TV and know very little about what they're protesting.


    Feel free to protest, but don't infringe on my rights when doing so.

    1. Re:Don't infringe on other people's rights please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't mind if people protest, but do not deface property and infringe on my rights.

      Okay...

      I don't mind if you protest... but go do it over there in that corner, where I can ignore you, and thus be apathetic to everything that's happening around me. I have to go to work and make money so I can spend it on the debt that this war is going to produce. I don't want to have to stop and think about that... Like really!

      Also, my rights are more important than anyone elses in the world. So, whatever you don't, don't infringe on them..

      Well.. If I were you and was worried about my rights, I'd start looking more closely at that PATRIOT act of yours, and really complain to the right people.

  11. Protesters by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Script Kiddies like protesters have found out:

    Breaking shit is a whole lot of fun! Now... If only I can find a cause to make my conscience feel good about doing it!

  12. Circus Clowns and Protestors by sssmashy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...carried a photo of protestors burning an American flag. Underneath the image, a message read: "Ohh YeaH BabY...Ur SiTe Has BeeN DeFaceD"

    This is pretty much the level of sophistication of most of the antiwar protests I've seen thus far, in the streets or on the internet.

    If I was a protester with genuine antiwar convictions, I'd be pretty annoyed that my credibility was being destroyed by 14 year-old script kiddies... not to mention the uninformed, loony-left, stringy-haired wannabe hippies pulling juvenile "look at me!" stunts on the streets of San Francisco.

    1. Re:Circus Clowns and Protestors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Haha i like how people have bought into this up is down, war is peace, freedom is slavery propoganda that "protestors are uninformed".

      The reason they are out protesting is BECAUSE THEY ARE INFORMED.

      The reason you sit inside on your sofa cheering on the ruling class is because YOU ARE NOT INFORMED.

      The American ruling class are really propoganda masters. Hitler would be proud.

  13. Re:Protestors by Telastyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Perhaps I could explain it to you, but then I'd have to kill you?

    Seriously though, I'd wager there's classified intelligence information that points to future agression by Iraq which is best handled before it becomes a significant danger.

    (or at least that's the only situation that I can come up with that could even excuse the unwarranted agression )

  14. Re:Protestors by AaronStJ · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Perhaps, if we can't explain why we're at war, we shouldn't be at war?

    The point is not that there is no explanation, there certainly is. The point is that the protestors don't take the time to understand what the reasons are, and instead blindly protest under the umbrella of "war is bad". If anti-war protestors can't even be bothered to understand the pro-war arguements, how can they expect to effictively counter them?
    --
    Stupid like a fox!
  15. Re:These vandals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    These vandals are no different than the terrorist regime of Saddam Hussein or the terrorist network of Al Queda. The only difference is that they use a computer as their weapon of choice, instead of a gun. They should be jailed.

    Or Bush, disobeying international law, setting a dangerous precedent of preemptive war (which because it was accepted that this was wrong kept us from killing eachother during the gulf war), removing civil rights from his citizens, killing innocents with laser targeted bombs powerful enough to level city blocks (Yeah, great, the centre of the blast was the military headquarters... too bad you took out a 3 block radius of apartments around it.)

    The only difference is that he is a politician with a large army, instead of a gun. He should be jailed.

  16. they don't get it by NixterAg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Once upon a time, protest was a means of bringing attention to an idea that was either being suppressed or ignored. However, the anti-war protesters instead are just being obnoxious. Everyone, at least hear in America, has not only heard the protesters opinions over and over again, as each week's protest is carried by every major news agency in the world. America has heard the protesters' reasoning but they've rejected them to the tune of 70% or so the populace. Protesters...getting louder is just making you look obnoxious.

    1. Re:they don't get it by jlazzaro74 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They have to get louder because they are being drowned out by all the "Go America" bullshit. The media has not given anything near equal voice to anti-war arguments as they have to pro-war rhetoric. The numbers of protestors have been grossely underestimated, and as for the polls that you think tell you 70% are in favor, they are completely fraudulent. I have watched several over the last weeks, and every time the results start to go in the anti-war direction, the questions are changed or the poll is dropped. Besides, any idiot knows you can get any result you want depending on how you phrase the question.

      Example: Do you or would you:
      • A) Support the war against Iraq
      • B) Support the war with UN backing
      • C) Oppose the war

      Now, since a lot of people are holding out for UN approval so we don't look like a bunch of assholes, you're going to have a lot of votes for B. You'll have some votes for A because about 1/3 of Americans are complete idiot hicks who think Saddam and Bin Laden are the same guy. Now when reporting the results, simply mash A and B together and say 70% support the war. It's not true, but it's not completely false either.

      If you think the media is liberal and would naturally want to skew opinions towards anti-war sentiments, I suggest you check out Alterman's book "What Liberal Media"

    2. Re:they don't get it by teh*fink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i agree with the poster above. remember, if you can, when you were a child, you had a point, and **nobody** would listen to you; so you get louder, and louder, and louder, because it's the world to you.
      it's an extremely frustrating feeling, especially when you feel the issue is of life & death and global importance. i can see that here. i don't agree with these protesters either, but not being violent takes alot of self-control (remember a couple poor, lost, and in their own eyes oppressed arab boys, eventually recruited by bin laden?)

      --
      "I DARE you to make less sense!"
    3. Re:they don't get it by NixterAg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      remember, if you can, when you were a child, you had a point, and **nobody** would listen to you; so you get louder, and louder, and louder, because it's the world to you

      I'm trying to discuss just the act of protesting, not the issue being protested, so I apologize for ignoring the 'life & death and global importance' aspect of your comment.

      Your child analogy is very good. The reason why you weren't listened to is because you acted like a child, so was it any wonder that people figured you'd say childish things? Even if you had something sage to offer, your reputation preceded you. That's the whole deal with the anti-war protests. These people often act like children (Bush = Hitler signs...for example) and then they act offended when they are ignored. In retaliation, they vomit on sidewalks, throw things at police, break store windows, block streets, and do obnoxious chants. As a result, these types will be ignored no matter what position they take, as they've ruined their credibility.

      You may say that those types of protesters are in the minority and I hope you're right, but the resounding silence of those non-idiotic protestors in condemning the stupidity of the attention mongers is telling in many people's eyes. If you are an anti-war protestor, the should preface anything you say with a condemnation of the types of idiocy that everyone sees in the papers. That would definitely add to the legitimacy of your opinion, in my eyes.

      Another thing...why do the protestors all fit the stereotype that people expect? Protesters urge that the majority feel just as they do, but all I see protesting are the usual nonconformist suspects (nonconformity is just another form of conformity but that's another issue). One of the reasons that the civil rights protests worked was because people looked at the protesters and they looked like everyday people. Just like the people next door. They were, first and foremost, civil, which was very much a justification of their position. These kooks blocking the streets and throwing up on sidewalks don't elicit the same response because it's clear to the average person that their motivation isn't the cause, it's the protest.

    4. Re:they don't get it by jlazzaro74 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's all try to remember that these are the folks with anti-war sentiments AND without jobs to worry about. I'm against this war (because it's just a sham to get US companies like Halliburton, Cheney's old corp into Iraq) but really, I'm not going to give up my job to protest it, and I am way too tired when I get off to want to go stand around with a bunch of hippies. I guess this is really the fault of people like me, who are against it in principle but when it comes right down to it are just too apathetic to really want to expend any energy fighting the inevitable.

  17. Re:These vandals by jlazzaro74 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't worry, when the Patriot Act expansion goes through, they will be labeled as terrorists and removed from their homes at gun point. They will be whisked off without trial, without thier families (or lawyers) being told where they are. They will be beaten and tortured, and if they let them go, they had better not talk about it. You see, if they complain to their congressmen or senators, that's an extra charge against them.

    It all sounds terribly fair eh? Well now, you may think so, but remember who gets to say who is a terrorist. Are you a union member? Being treated unfairly? Haven't seen a raise for 5 years? Strike you say? Well careful there cowboy, your job is essential to the operation of American interests, and you're disrupting commerce. Terrorist!

    OK, maybe you're not a union member. Let's say you belong to a group that wrote some cool encryption tool. Well my friend that nasy encryption could aid the enemy. Aid a terrorist? You're a commu -- I mean terrorist! You're little group is busted!

    These are just two examples of how this administration could easily take advantage of this situation (as if they haven't already) to force issues to go the way of their lobbyists. Think it can't happen here? Yeah, I'm sure the Germans said all the time "Just think, another 4 years and we'll be in war, branded as inhuman monsters, and killing massive amounts of innocent Jews. Damn that's gonna be fun". Nobody sees this stuff coming, people just get swept up in it.

  18. omg wtg u l4m3rz by Cirrius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have the technical ability and cutting edge hacking tools to crack into a major government website and deliver the ultimate statement on the state of affairs that just might be read by millions... ...and you put "Ohh YeaH BabY...Ur SiTe Has BeeN DeFaceD."

  19. Re:i'm surprised by SoCalChris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure someone probably tried. It sounds like most of the hacks were done by script kiddies, so if Reuters has a decent IT staff they were probably fine.

  20. Well... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, if some cracker was to break into the enviromental controls for Saddams bunker and sufficate his dumb ass, I don't the US would be that pissed about the situation, other than slapping some general around and saying "Why didn't you think of that dipshit!"

    However, defacing websites only sends one message... your an idiot who can use script kiddie tools...
    Why don't you do something more productive, like participate in the Democratic process and let your elected officals know how you feel about the war, what you think your country should be doing to prevent war.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  21. Re:Protestors by Maeryk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Umm, perhaps the reason they can't explain why we're truly at war, is because they can't comprehend ANY good reason to launch a massive, unprovoked invasion, against the clear will of the international community and against international law, against a country that poses little threat to the country launching the attack?

    Dude.. 45 countries have supported us. thats three TIMES the number who would have had to vote positive in the UN. Of those who dont, only a handful really matter. get the facts straight. (And realize several of them are the neighboring states..w hich brings us to... )

    I have to admit I can't explain why we're truly at war either, economicly it will be disasterous, it has ruined the international diplomatic ties the US once had, and it makes the citizens of the Uninted States more at risk to future terrorist attacks and in the worst case senario could start World War III

    Economically, its already helping. Looked at the stock exchange lately? The International Diplomatic Ties basically mean we are the enforcement arm of the UN when they want us, but god forbid they take our feeligns into acount when their cushy oil deals with Iraq may go up in smoke. Where were all these protestors when Clinton got us into Bosnia? For far fewer crimes against humanity than Hussein has racked up, we are over there to this day!.

    Come, come, since you're so ready to critisize others for being unable to explain the cause of this war, explain the real reason we are at war, instead of alluding to it in an ambigious manner...


    The real reason is threefold, at least. One) Hussein will use the weapons he is undoubtedly building against Israel soon enough. That is a doomsday scenario you dont want to see. Two) He (hussein) has been thumbing his nose at us for 12 years, ignoring our sanctions, and recently, openly mouthing off. THere is little doubt that he has ties to the terrorist activities of the last several years, at least in those who actually read the press, and dont necessarily swallow the leftist jargon hook, line, and sinker. And because we cannot continue to get black eyes and NOT retaliate. The Sept 11 attack was a black eye.. but not nearly the black eye left on us by Hussein continuing his reign of death and destruction in Iraq after we supposedly stopped him 12 years ago. Even Colin Powell says it was a mistake not to finish the job when we had the chance.

    If we leave the US as a huge target that never retaliates, there is _nothing_ stopping every islamic crackpot in the world from taking a shot at us. They know we will do nothing. Bush promised to take after Afghanistan and any other country who harbors, funds, or makes possible terrorists/isms, and unlike our previous president, he is following through on his promise.

    Those reasons, along with the very real threat that he has nuclear weapons, are the reasons we are at war. (And no, the nuclear weaposn are not a threat to us.. but if you pay any attention to the international politics you quote above, using them against Israel WOULD start world war 3.)

    Maeryk

    --
    Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
  22. Doublethink... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love the doublethink brought out over the last few years.

    Having War will give Peace
    Disobeying the UN will give it purpose
    Cowardice is the refusal to injure thousands of innocent civilians living in Baghdad opposing a major power's whim.
    Bravery is the ability to order the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis without wincing or bringing up your Caesar salad.
    Apparently, well-fed young men sitting in millions of dollars' worth of military hardware and dropping bombs from 30,000ft on impoverished people who have already had all their arms taken away are exemplars of 'bravery'.

    War on Terrorism... In the words of Terry Jones: "You can wage war against another country, or on a national group within your own country, but you can't wage war on an abstract noun. How do you know when you've won?"

    Geez... The doublespeak is astounding.

    My favourite one was the attack of "Shock and Awe" that the US is parading, or as the CBC puts it "Anger and Confusion". No one is shocked, no one is awed, everyone is angry and everyone is confused in Iraq.

    It's pretty darn hard to be in awe of a nation that is invading you.

    Oh wait... we aren't invading iraq, or occupying iraq. Even though they are raising american colours over Iraqi cities that have been.. umm.. liberated...

    Yeah.. that makes sense.

    Stop playing word games, open your eyes, and you'll see what's happening.

    Or you can just live in doublethink and apathy. That's the way a good patriotic citizen should live I guess.

    1. Re:Doublethink... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's a pity when a thinker such as this has to post anonymously.. including those of us who agree with him/her/it.

  23. That'll show 'em! by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Defacing web sites to protest the war is the stupidest thing I've heard of since those congress critters banned the word "french" from the capitol cafeteria menu.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  24. In it for the money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    War puts an end to economic speculation, increases spending and generally drives the world markets up. If you've been paying attention to the business news, almost all markets are in the green, trading is good and commodity prices are down. The DOW has gained more in the past 2 days than in the past 3 years.

    All at the expense of Iraq, of course.

  25. US isn't spending the lives of soldiers cheaply by sssmashy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just wish that the government wouldn't spend their lives so cheaply

    Do you think that the US Gov't is spending the lives of its soldiers cheaply? I can't think of any army in history that places so much value on the lives of individual soldiers as today's US Army. To accomplish a given mission, the Army would rather spend millions of dollars on high tech surveillance and "smart" missiles than risk the life of a single US soldier in actual combat.

    The soldiers may be brave and willing, but the Army is so risk-adverse they are willing to do almost anything, at any cost, to avoid American combat casualties.

    I wouldn't be surprised to learn that at the end of the war, more soldiers die from accidents than actual combat. Probably, the Army's mortality rate won't be much higher than it would be for a similar-sized group driving on American highways, or smoking American cigarettes.

    1. Re:US isn't spending the lives of soldiers cheaply by robi2106 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No kidding (excluding R&D costs):
      Each foot soldier has several $THOUSAND (or more) dollars of technology on them. Each pilot has $MILLIONS in technology surrounding them. Each sailor has $BILLIONS in technology around them.

      How in the heck can people say that the US throws troops around like cannon fodder. Try reading about US civil war or French & Indian war combat.

      That was throwing soldiers around like nothing.

      robi

    2. Re:US isn't spending the lives of soldiers cheaply by RatBastard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And with all that the poor bastard hauling all that shiny high-tech kit around gets paid so little that his wife and kids often have to resort to food stamps to eat. Then there is the goverment disemboweling the Veterans Administration and continiously lowering a soldier's veteran's benefits and constantly trying to weasel out of covering the after-effects of wartime injuries.

      Oh, yes, we treat our Boys and Girls in Green/Blue like they are rare and precious diamonds.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  26. Well, HERE'S an arrogant one... by Millennium · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So you assume that just because we don't agree with you, we must be ignoring you? Why is that? Because you think you have some kind of monopoly on The Truth or something? You're no better than you claim Bush to be, if that's really your attitude.

    You have rights. I have rights. I cannot interfere with your rights, and you cannot interfere with mine. And yes, that means that if you wish to protest, you must do so in such a way that doesn't disrupt people's lives. Not only are you not attracting converts by doing so, you're in fact breeding resentment among the very people you should be courting.

    Yes, the so-called PATRIOT act is a gross violation of everything this nation stands for. That's no excuse to violate people's rights even further.

  27. Re:That's not protesting. It's spam. by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem with forums is that you usually wind up preaching to the converted. Witness Slashdot for instance. We have several groups of converted and they all preach to each other and war with their opposition. But... nothing is ever accomplished:

    -Linux vs. Windows
    -MP3 vs. OGG
    -Corporations are good vs. Corporations are evil
    -Capitalism vs. Any other viable option
    -Conservative vs. Liberal
    -GNOME vs. KDE

    etc...

    Forums are, for the most part, a waste of time. The only real way to get your message heard (especially if it is an unpopular one) is with acts that really inconvenience others. As you said, it's a lot like spam. Those folks, as much as they should be flayed alive, are smart enough to know that their method works. Even though it inconveniences others, their message gets heard.

    Sometimes the only way to get a message across is to jump up and down and yell "fire" in a crowded theater while holding up a sign saying "I oppose the War in Iraq".

  28. That's because 'Patriot' has become deformed by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 5, Insightful
    .. in the minds of many Americans.

    A Patriot is someone who loves their country, and works to help better it.

    A Patriot is not silent on government corruption, illegal wars, or anything else that they think hurts the long-term health of the country.

    A Patriot does criticize. They criticize at times of extreme political unrest. They ask questions when questions need to be asked.

    And yes, a Patriot will perform acts of civil disobedience, when extreme situations warrent it.

    A Patriot does not, under any circumstances, cowtow to the party line and 'fall in' as to not 'cause ripples'. A Patriot stands up and shouts to the fucking ceiling, 'something is wrong', when they feel something is wrong.

    (And you know what's really funny? I'm Canadian. You know, one of those countries that's not 'the greatest nation in the whole world'. Whattajoke that phrase is. The hubris knows no bounds.)

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    1. Re:That's because 'Patriot' has become deformed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the funny thing is in Portland, Or., the mayor and our local government are trying to pass a new bill stating that civil disobedience is terrorism... Go figure doing what the US constitution says you can do will be a life sentence in this stte after Monday if the bill passes.
      portland.inymedia.org

  29. *Sigh* by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the article:

    Like graffiti, defaced Web sites are considered little more than a nuisance. The message tends to get wide exposure, but the damage to the victim is minimal. Web site operators typically have the site restored within a matter of hours.

    Will the media ever learn that a seemingly "innocent" act of defacing a website causes a major headache for the people who have to patch the hole and make sure the rest of their systems weren't compromised? Of course, what should I expect from an article that thinks that crackers and "hackers" are the same thing.

  30. Re:What is the logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I was wondering if anyone could explain the logic behind protesting a war that is already started?

    Sure.

    Some people believe that thousands of Iraqi women, men and children are dying, hiding in bomb shelters or otherwise suffering for no good reason other than Bush's immediate political needs.

    Those people feel the need to should ``not in my name'' to the world's face. It is difficult to blame them.

  31. Re:Protestors by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You've got to be kidding. The entire world has been pleading with the US to present some evidence that this war is justified, and the US keeps coming up empty. You think we have secret info that we can't share with the world that would justify it? If it existed the Bush admin would have brought it out in order to get the UN mandate it sought. In the absence of real evidence, we are just supposed to assume there is secret evidence somewhere they won't tell us about?

  32. Re:Protestors by Anonymous+Struct · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dude.. 45 countries have supported us. thats three TIMES the number who would have had to vote positive in the UN.

    45 countries' governments, not 45 countries' populations.

    Of those who dont, only a handful really matter.

    China matters, France matters, Germany matters, Russia matters, Canada matters, India matters. These are the big players around the world today. How much US foreign policy does Albania influence? This doesn't even take into account the fact that although many governments are with us, much of their population is against us, as is the case in Spain and Japan, and almost certainly any Arab members.

    Economically, its already helping. Looked at the stock exchange lately?

    a) a one-week rally does little to mark the end of a multi-year recession,
    b) I think he may be referring to the record-breaking deficits we're already racking up as a result. To say that this is helping the economy and then to point at one rally is not convincing.

    One) Hussein will use the weapons he is undoubtedly building against Israel soon enough. That is a doomsday scenario you dont want to see.

    Since when does speculation build the foundation for unilateral military action? Even if you're right, you're assuming he could continue to develop these weapons with the entire world's eyes trained on him.

    Two) He (hussein) has been thumbing his nose at us for 12 years, ignoring our sanctions, and recently, openly mouthing off. THere is little doubt that he has ties to the terrorist activities of the last several years, at least in those who actually read the press, and dont necessarily swallow the leftist jargon hook, line, and sinker.

    a) Thumbing your nose at the U.S. does not justify a war.
    b) Once again, linking Iraq to Al Qaeda is pure speculation until someone comes up with some real evidence. We've been pursuing this angle for almost a year now, and have yet to produce a convincing argument. If the administration had what even they considered to be a convincing argument, they would be waving it for the world to see at every single press conference.

    If we leave the US as a huge target that never retaliates, there is _nothing_ stopping every islamic crackpot in the world from taking a shot at us.

    There was a huge campaign in afganistan that overthrew an islamic fundamentalist regime, and I think we made our point very clearly. Attacking Iraq, which is not a fundamentalist nation (it's not even an Islamic nation), is not making a point about Sept. 11th. There are dozens of hotter terrorist spots we could be focusing on.

    Those reasons, along with the very real threat that he has nuclear weapons, are the reasons we are at war.

    Absolutely unfounded. Not only do we have zero evidence of any Iraqi nuclear capability (after years of searching for it), but there are dozens of other dangerous nations that DO have nuclear capabilities, and we seem to have little interest in them.

    The original post was right on the money. If we take away the speculation and the emotions, it leaves us with a very weak case for going to war. The majority of people and governments of the world recognize how weak the case really is, and that is why there is very little support for this war abroad.

  33. Re:Detrimental... by sladelink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    don't make others miserable trying to drive your point home

    I wonder what the Iraqi people would have to say about that, seeing as how they're dying and everything.

    --
    sigs are dumb.
  34. Not Correct by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Believe it or not, Mr L337 has acurately described what he is doing with this "protest". He is defacing public/private property, and that is a crime.

    Very true.

    The protests on the Streets of San Francisco are not "Civil" though they are assuredly disobedient.

    "Civil" in civil disobedience refers not to civility (politeness), but to civilian, or disobedience to civil authority. There is a profound difference in both definition and implication.

    In other words, the actions of those protestors snarling traffic in SF may not be civil (def: polite or cordial), but it most assuredly is "civil disobedience" (disobedience to civilian authority).

    A person engaging in civil disobedience expects to be arrested and to "pay" for their crime, but choose do break the law regardless as a political statement. Ghandi and Martin Luthar King, Jr. are two such examples ... both broke laws, and did jail time, in efforts to show such laws were unjust and should be repealed. They succeeded.

    A protestor on the street of San Francisco blocking traffic is most certainly engaged in "civil disobedience" and, unless they are an imbecel (quite possible based on some of the rhetoric I've seen from that direction), they fully expect to be arrested and pay for their crime. This tradeoff is worthwhile in their view, as it gives them media exposure with which they can get their message across.

    Web defacement might possibly be another such form of civil disobedience, though I suspect you're right in that those doing so don't expect to get caught ... they probably expect to commit and crime and get away with it. If so, then you are right in pointing out that what they are doing isn't civil disobedience, else they'd turn themselves in and allow themselves to be arrested to bring more attention to the issues they are protesting. Instead, they are likely just petty vandals using an opportunity to strike out at institutions they hate.

    I can relate to the hatred (in part) ... I don't like the corporatization of America, or the corporate hijacking of the UN through the WTO and WIPO, any more than the next person. However, I cannot relate to or condone their behavior either ... unless they turn themselves in and face the music, they are merely vandals, not civilly disobedient protestors.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  35. Re:Protestors by Daimaou · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I really don't think they do.

    This is not directed at you BunjiX, but rather all those brainwashed protesters against the war. I just happened to relpy to your comment since you brought up the point that these people can't find a sufficient reason to go to war.

    I am 100% in support of this war and I am hopeful that they destroy Saddam and his bunch. We are told that the reason we are having this war is because Saddam has weapons that he intends to use. That is a secondary issue for me. I am for this war and the removal of Saddam for the benefit of Iraqi people.

    There are very evil people in this world, and Saddam is one of them. He needs to be dealt with. If you are too French to do anything about it, then get out of the way.

    When I lived in Japan, I remember walking into a train station full of people, there was a large highschool student kicking and pounding a kid half his size in the face. The smaller kid's lips were both split in several places and he was missing a few teeth. His nose was bleeding and his whole face was swollen. He was not fighting back; only trying to get away. However, the bigger kid wouldn't let him. What was every last stinking coward in the train station doing? Not a damn thing.

    I approached to put a stop to it, and was finally joined by 5 or 6 security people from the train station. Until then, nobody did anything. They all just sat there and watched this small kid getting beating to a bloody heap. Some of them had the intelligence and insight to comment on what a shame it all was and how it was wrong, but that was it. No action. They might as well been beating the kid themselves. Every last person in that train station was a stinking coward in my opinion.

    In the case of the war, Saddam is the bully that is oppressing, and at times torturing and killing his people. All the anti-war morons act like Iraqi people enjoy the same rights and freedoms we have and we are infringing upon their peaceful way of life. Well, they don't enjoy the life we have you brainwashed idiots! If you pulled this kind of "protest"crap in Iraq YOU WOULD BE KILLED!!!

    To me, anti-war folk are the same types of cowards that stood in that train station in Japan ten years ago; sharing their self-righteous, prolix commentary with each other in a state of absolute impotence while pitying the victims of the world but not doing anything about it; too worried for their own skins to do the right thing and help.

    There is evil in this world, and it is up to the decent people of the world to do something about it. If you're too afraid to act, then get out of the way and let those who have some guts set things right so the people of Iraq can at long last have some peace.

    It's about helping those who can't help themselves. It's about doing what's right. It's about creating eventual peace. It's not about your beloved leftist politicking and your hatred of Republicans, President Bush, oil and SUVs. You people "protesting" make me sick.

  36. Working within a democratic society 101? by supabeast! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it just me, or does it seem that we would be better off if high schools taught a class in things like well-managed protest, writing letters to representatives, contacting the media and generally affecting society without being an asshole?

    1. Re:Working within a democratic society 101? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They have been. Thus far, all reliable polls show that Americans support the war. The numbers vary depending on what specific question is asked and which poll it is, but they are always above 60%. Thus, the politicians ARE doing what the majority wants.

      The problem I see from many anti-war people is they seem to assume that you aren't listening if you don't agree with them. This applies not only to the government but to individuals too. I often get yelled at because I'm not listening when, in fact, I AM listening quite carefully, I am just disagreeing. They think they have the One True Belief and that anyone who disagrees must just be stupid and/or not listening to them.

      Well, that's not how it works. The government DOES listen, but it listens to both sides of the issue. So a quarter million people marched. Great, this is a nation of hundreds of millions of people and they are ALL entitled to an opinion.

      It is perfectly possable for a person to listen intently to you, understand every word you say, and still disagree with you in the end. Look at philsophical rebuttals of papers. In any good rebuttal it is quite clear that the person understood the peice they are rebutting completely, they just disagree with the conclusions and then challenge them.

  37. Re:Protestors by Serveert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By not supplying a factual reason for going to war the U.S. is set on a course which isn't the best one. Bush has single handedly set a precedent.. Presidents and PMs of the world can attack nations by saying "We have evidence which we can't share you, but trust us, this is worth it." This is dangerous.

    And no, there is no link between Saddam and Bin Laden. Cheney claimed their was citing a report between Al Queda and an Iraqi officer in Prague, but that was proven to be false. Bush has said screw you to diplomacy, the UN, NATO, proving proof to wage war.. Domestically we are in a long term recession and his tax cut is bankrupting social security. Domestically and internationally bush is screwing all Americans. While he wages war spending trillions, school kids can't go to school because there's no funding for their school and their buildings aren't maintained.

    Bush will go down as the worst president in history when all is said and done.

    --
    2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
  38. Re:Heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oil prices dropped from $40 to $24 per barrel in the past couple weeks. I hereby challenge your assertion. 90% of Iraq's oil is not even being tapped into. More supply over the next 10 years will come online from Iraq, thereby lowering prices even more due to more supply. Production prices for oil in Iraq are insanely low. Oil companies will suffer. Hollywood liberals will benefit because they will be able to afford more gas for the huge SUVs they hide in the garage while they are out protesting.

    If Saddam is ousted, the biggest winners will be the Iraqis. They have an educated and willing middle class who is able to build/maintain a country. They are eons ahead of Afganistan. Iraq has the possibility to be a modern Arab country, such as Qatar, Kuwait, and a few others. Once Iraq goes this way, others will likely follow, including Iran.

  39. Re:YOU don't get it... by jlazzaro74 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First, I'm not saying I think they did the right thing, but hey, it did get them attention when most anti-war sentiments are being ignored. Besides, it's always the extremists who are going to get the media attention anyhow. You aren't going to see passive, boring protests on the news, nor will you hear the opinions of the millions who might support a war, if only they were given a decent reason for it.

    Second, about the stats, that's exactly my point. It's meaningless, it can be easily manipulated. In the current climate, it just happens to be better business for the press to spin it in a pro-war fashion. The Bush administration has demonstrated that if you diss them, you're finished. Either they will just start ignoring you, banning you from press conferences or ignoring your questions, or some jackass will get on the air calling a journalist that asks real questions "The closest thing we have to an American terrorist". Can't remember the assholes name, I'm sure someone here can tell us.

    Anyhow, believe nothing you hear, especially things coming from the side with the most to gain.

  40. Yet Another War Troll by voiceofthewhirlwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love (note sarcasm) how in the very country these anti-war people seek to save, they would be killed, tortured, or raped for the very actions they do to try to save it.

    Do they not see the irony?


    The irony is tired and cliched, and a contains two strawmen to boot (the purpose of the war and the purpose of the 'anti-war people'). This sort of arguement dates at least to the war against Vietnam...

    The fact that your country gives you a right to protest does not give it the right to invade countries that don't.

  41. Re:Protestors by johnnyb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's wrong with Fox news? It appears to be the only outlet providing both conservative and liberal opinions.

    Outside of fox news, you either have the liberal TV people or conservative radio.

  42. Re:Protestors by targo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dude.. 45 countries have supported us

    I am a citizen of one of those countries. By polls 80% of our population is opposed to the war. It is not a coincidence that the supporting countries are relatively small and poor. Their governments have been easier to bribe and pressure. The only country in the worlds where the population is supporting the war is USA, and that's because of the propaganda in mainstream media (the same people who support the war, also believe that it was Saddam Hussein who organized 9/11, which is clearly a nonsense).
    Even in UK, 70% of people are against the war.

    Economically, its already helping. Looked at the stock exchange lately?

    Wrong again. The stock market is just climbing out of the hole where it fell because of the uncertainty. Now that the end is near, we're just restoring the equilibrium.

    Where were all these protestors when Clinton got us into Bosnia?

    There's a huge difference between ending a war, and starting one, hence the the protests.

    If we leave the US as a huge target that never retaliates, there is _nothing_ stopping every islamic crackpot in the world from taking a shot at us.

    Iraq is a secular country, and Saddam Hussein is certainly not an islamic crackpot. He has done absolutely nothing to the US that would justify attacking his country and killing hundreds of thousands of people (the first Gulf war killed 100-200000 people and it was mostly in deserts, it is going to be mostly in cities this time).

  43. Re:Heroes by JebusIsLord · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Understand that essentially NO ONE is as right-wing as the american Republican party. Up here in Canada, your Democrats appear pretty center (akin to our Conservatives) while your Republicans appear hard-core right (some would compare them to fascists, but I'm just trying to educate here, not stoke the flames).

    This is simply because America is really the least socialist, most capitalist western nation out there. Chirac is OUR idea of right-wing (and France's), but certainly not yours.

    --
    Jeremy
  44. Re:Protestors by freejung · · Score: 2, Insightful
    there is _nothing_ stopping every islamic crackpot in the world from taking a shot at us

    How is it that people so often assume that brutally attacking and killing people is likely to make them less pissed off?

  45. Re:What is the logic? by freejung · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The logic, obviously, is to get attention, and it clearly worked. Whether or not you agreed with it, you heard what they had to say, didn't you?

    All this war is doing is giving terrorists more fuel for their fight. They can say, "look, the Americans have attacked us without provocation and against international law, so how can you blame us for wanting to retaliate?"

    Do you really think that a hardcore Iraqi soldier (who hasn't decided to surrender already) is going to feel much solidarity for a bunch of hippies, or even care what they think one way or another? Or that the protests could possibly do anything to weaken the "argument" raining down on Baghdad right now?

    The logic of protest is to get your voice heard. Nobody thinks the US is going to stop the war. Some still feel compelled by conscience to express their opinion about it.

  46. Re:Protestors by freejung · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Im talkign about Egypt, Syria

    Yes, I can see that. And what I'm talking about is, how does making war against an islamic nation make the muslims less likely to attack the US, exactly? The primary terrorist threat comes from extremists, not the mainstream of any particular country or government. The idea that violence acts as a deterrant to further violence is simply flawed. Violence begets violence, terror begets terror, war begets war. Fighting for peace is like fsking for chastity.

    War increases the probability of terrorist attack from people pissed off about the war. That's what I'm saying. The message this sends to governments is not "don't engage in terrorist activity," but rather, "don't you dare defy us or attempt to oppose our will, or else."

  47. Re:Heroes by Catbeller · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Hollywood liberals".

    Plonk.

    Ah, the fat, sweaty smell of Limbaugh...