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.

121 of 660 comments (clear)

  1. i'm surprised by tiedyejeremy · · Score: 3, Funny

    i'm surprised reuters didn't get hit for carrying the story.

    --
    Anything you say will be held against you. ... "tits"
    1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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 cmallinson · · Score: 4, Informative
      The less fluff, the better. We just want the friggin news.

      here you go

    2. Re:news sites are all safe by ParticleGirl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, I thought that it was really interesting that CNN's website immediately switched to a smaller version of their usual website; fewer stories, fewer pictures, less to load, with links from there at 9:30pm EST Wednesday. Instead of waiting for the slowdown, they anticipated it. I don't think I've ever seen that happen before-- not that there have been so many incidents that have generated that kind of blanket interest since the web became a major news source for the masses. The only one, in fact, that I can think of was Sept. 11th; these measures were definitely not taken then until sites had already started going down.

      --
      Do something about world hunger. Click here
    3. Re:news sites are all safe by davetrainer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      sucking bandwidth with Flash ads saying "WAR!" and streaming RealMedia

      Huh?

      Which news sites are you visiting? No major news outlet that I know of streams RealMedia on the front page until it's explicitly asked to do so. Both CNN and MSNBC are approximately 30k in size. Slashdot's front page is nearly double that.

    4. Re:news sites are all safe by AssFace · · Score: 3, Informative

      technically, unless the Flash contains bitmaps or audio, it isn't all that large. If you stick to actual vector graphics, the entire compiled package remains quite small since it is rendering it all at run time.

      --

      There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
    5. Re:news sites are all safe by n3k5 · · Score: 5, Informative
      how many of these hack attacks are exploiting known issues?
      Pretty much all of them. The current political situation doesn't cause hordes of über-crackers to spring up, it's mostly protesters, nationalists and script kiddies fooling around with known exploits. The article doesn't mention a single big, well-known web site -- which tend to have better security -- as a target, most of the attacked sites are simply small fragbait.
      --
      but what do i know, i'm just a model.
    6. Re:news sites are all safe by w1r3sp33d · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  4. Slashdot has found its niche :) by targo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot has found its own niche and comments on non-mainstream tech issues related to the war, instead of just parroting the regular feed. Way to go!

  5. All False by Arc04 · · Score: 5, Funny

    None of these claims are true.
    Someone has just hacked into /. and defaced index.pl to show this story!!!

    But seriously.....has /. ever been defaced by e-vandals?

    Arc

    1. Re:All False by AssFace · · Score: 3, Informative

      /. was hacked into at least once that I can recall.

      IIRC it was something like:

      When Slash (the code) is distributed, there are default passwords in place (so they say, I've never looked at the code b/c I don't particularly care - I don't run it anywhere).
      Someone ran a check to see all of the hosts at slashdot that could be seen from the outside world.
      From there, then they looked to see which of those servers was running Slash.
      They found one which wasn't a production one, and they got in via the default password still being in place.
      From there they made changes... and that is where I'm less clear - how the changes were propigated up to the main site(s).

      --

      There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
    2. Re:All False by LokiSteve · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yup.. /. has been hacked
      <br>
      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=9 8/09/14/1949212&mode=thread

      --
      END OF LINE.
    3. Re:All False by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "But seriously.....has /. ever been defaced by e-vandals?"

      Yes. Remember that story where a Linux user happily switched to XP?

    4. Re:All False by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 5, Funny

      But seriously.....has /. ever been defaced by e-vandals?

      I think they call those "TROLLS" around here.

      --

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

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
  6. Re:Protestors by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  7. 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 Anonymous+Struct · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't know... 'w3 r 2 l337 4 u' IS a compelling argument, after all. Maybe they ARE too leet for us. Maybe we should listen to them and do what they say....

    2. Re:And the point is? by anotherone · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Interestingly enough, that's no different than the protest strategy that everyone else in the world is using. Seriously, what good does tying up traffic or puking do to get people to agree with you?

      Not a damn thing. 76% of Americans approve of the war, but the protesters want to make it seem like they are the majority rather than a (shrinking) minority.

      --
      Username taken, please choose another one.
    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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

    6. Re:And the point is? by Xerithane · · Score: 5, Funny

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


      No they don't, only 51%. Considering that 11% of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a map, that isn't too bad.

      The U.S. is not a democracy, it is a republic.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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"
    10. 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
    11. Re:And the point is? by Yokaze · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Did you mention the current situation in other Arabic nations? Currently, mostly governed by non-democratic leaderships, which are slightly pro-american (at least compared to the public opinion in their nations), which are supposed to be replaced democratic goverments by the shining example Iraq is expected to set.

      Noticing the current discontent of the people with their current goverments, the wished for change might even come earlier than expected and a different way than expected.

      Oh, and the Palestinian situtation will be much easier to solve, after removing the dictator, who spend a good fortune on their "freedom fighters" (Well, we would call them terrorists, but still it strengthened his support among them)

      What will the Kurds do when Turkey will invade in northern Iraq, or how Turkey will react, when the Kurds should found an independent state.

      One thing to add:

      The dictatorship actually owning a fully functionally nuclear program, quite possibly two or three nuclear bombs, rockets with enough range to strike the U.S. and also distinguished member of the Axis of Evil.

      Which features a starving and supressed people, partly fleeing to its neighbouring dictatorship, which most people in our situation would think people would flee from and a dictator, who is also not a very pleasent person, to say the least.
      A nation, whose corporation with the UN-inspectors culminated quite recently in kicking them out.

      This esteemed nation is quite alive and kicking.
      Not that I suggest waging a war with it, but one has to wonder, what consequences a dictator has to draw in having WMDs.

      Of course, it is a totally different situation than Iraq, but one has always has to keep an eye what kind of impression one might make.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    12. 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.

    13. 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
    14. Re:And the point is? by shawnseat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, but we [in the US] don't kill our own people [with WMD].

      Au contraire. The now infamous plutonium injections caused very similar results to what a dirty bomb would (actually worse). And the Tuskegee Experiment was an exercise in "studying" biological warfare as well. However, we did do our Agent Orange testing on yellow-brown skinned people instead of Americans excepting those who were inadvertently exposed, so that's OK, I guess, right?

      --
      Religion is the opiate of the masses. The wealthy smoke the real stuff.
  8. You could do it too! by Andreas(R) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    See How to Overthrow a country, and do it yourself, now!

  9. 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.
  10. 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 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.

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

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

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. Re:Bias by HBI · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There were 'hawks' and 'doves' during Vietnam, amongst the elite. The hawks viewed protesters as communist sympathizers (i.e. pretty much what the right thinks of them today). The doves looked at them more as misguided young people. Think Hubert Humphrey here.

      In the end, most common folk had little sympathy for the protesters during Vietnam, as today. They're too wacky and weird to appeal to the mainstream, and then as now, they derive most of their sense of moral superiority by their close association with opinions voiced by foreign leaders. Hence, the appearance of being unpatriotic.

      Having Jacques Chirac on your side isn't exactly guaranteed to endear you to the American public.

      My opinion is that they generally make their own bed and I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. They can lie in it now. If they wanted to be popular they'd make their point in a more acceptable manner to the US public.

      This is a perfect application of the First Amendment. The Dixie Chicks or Martin Sheen can say whatever antiwar drivel they want, and the US public can choose to not buy their stuff, and thereby hurt them economically. Or not. But the system works just fine.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    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.

  11. 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]
  12. 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, Informative

      Actually, civil disobedience refers to the act of deliberately breaking the law in order to express your opinions. The idea is to overload the "justice" system with traffic, a sort of DOS attack of the court system, and of course also to attract media attention.

      In order to commit acts of civil disobedience, you have to break the law. The word "civil" in this context doesn't necessarily mean "polite".

      To quote George Carlin, "What exactly is a 'civil war' anyway? 'Excuse me, RATATATATATATATATAT! Oh, I'm terribly sorry, did that hurt?'"

    3. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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!

  15. 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 Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 3, Funny

      The protesters are out because they are unemployed.

  16. Re:Protestors by Little+Brother · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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?

    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

    No, I can't explain why we're truly at war either, it baffles me. It is the most ill-conceived thing our government has done in my lifetime. Pray tell, why are we REALLY at war?

    It isn't because Iraq has violated UN mandates, Isreal has violated more, and we still support them. It isn't because they have weapons of mass destruction, North Korea has more in that catagory, and we're trying "diplomatic means" to deal with them. It isn't because of Saddam's human rights record, or we'd be at war with China, not granting them favoured trade status. It isn't because the inspections were failing, the inspectors themselves thought the process was working, and shouldn't they know? 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...

    --

    Little Brother, watching the watchers

  17. Re:Protestors by mrtroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can you explain the current fiscal policy that the national reserve has put in place of lowering interest rates to stimulate economy growth? Do you know why they dont just set them to 0 in times of good growth? Maybe if you have studied economics.

    Can the average American dictate foreign policy for the United States? Same answer, no, unless you did your doctoral in polysci and are smart++.

    Can the average joe schmoe vote and decide who is best to lead them and make such decisions? Yes.
    Don't hate the player, hate the game...democracy is what we stand for and seem to be criticizing lately?

    --
    [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
  18. 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 )

  19. What is the logic? by anocelot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OK. I had a hard time driving around SF yesterday because of people doing more or less the same thing. On the one hand, they are blocking access to cyber places - and on the other they are blocking access to real ones. I was wondering if anyone could explain the logic behind protesting a war that is already started? Does anyone really believe that our government is going to stop and say, "Gee, we better stop this war so that those guys from Berkley will move off the Altimont Expressway..."

    All I can see here is people giving Saddam (or what's left of his regime) fuel for his fight. He can say, "Look, the American people don't believe what their government is doing. Stop surendering and kill kill kill!!!" This would cause more loss of life to american soldiers. So... Can anyone explain what the protesters are hoping to get out of this? (Other than a permanent record...)

    -anocelot

    --
    This tagline brought to you by 1500 monkeys in just under 17 years.
    1. 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.

  20. 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!
  21. Re:These vandals by endoboy · · Score: 4, Funny
    These vandals are no different than the terrorist regime of .....

    well, perhaps there might be a few small differences (dead people, for instance), but why split hairs....

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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."

  25. 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.
  26. And I remember it happening during the war in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...'Nam a few more years back.

    Of course, I'm also crazy.

  27. 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?
  28. 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.

  29. 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."
  30. Free America! by term8or · · Score: 3, Funny

    A dreadful, evil, warped and [gasp] evil dictators is hiding weapons of mass destruction right in the heart of the United States.

    We must stop Bill Gates!

    --



    "As a writer / novelist you might want to spellcheck your sig. :) " - AC
  31. Re:Heroes by ocelotbob · · Score: 3, Informative
    I've got serious reservations, but you can't be intellctually honest unless you consider the extensive contracts that corporations such as the French-based corporation Fina and the like have with the Iraqi government, contracts that will be null and void if there is military action. Contracts that definitely influence their own governments actions.

    Or is it somehow "unfair" to talk about the left's economic involvement in the middle east?

    --

    Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  32. 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 Monkey+Angst · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right. The US Army is unquestionably concerned with soldiers' lives, more than any army in history. A very small percentage of soldiers in modern conflict actually see combat, which is a Good Idea when it comes to bringing our boys home alive. Unfortunately, it has the side effect of requiring an alternative form of pacification -- which takes the form of bombing campaigns. These campaigns often start as so-called "precision" campaigns (like what we are seeing now) then if that doesn't work, they switch to good old-fashioned carpet bombing. There were reports of B-52's taking off from Britain... I have not read anything indicating they have entered the conflict yet. If they do, that is the end of the precision phase of the campaign. The B-52 is NOT a precision instrument... a single sortie creates a "box" 1kmx2km in which nothing gets out alive. The government weighs civillian life vs. the lives of our troops, and generally ends up favoring the latter.

      --
      stripShow - Where WordPress meets webcomics
    3. 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.
  33. Global internet traffic actually down recent days by isn't+my+name · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to Internet Traffice Report, overall global traffic is down the last three days. Not that it shows the whole picture. I'm sure that the shape of that traffic in the last few days has changed dramatically.

  34. Wired Story by dirvish · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wired has a story on the same subject: http://wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,58143,0 0.html

  35. Detrimental... by TJPile · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not saying the protesters aren't entitled to their opinions. I'm just angry that the "hax0rz" are creating so much more work for th IT folks who have nothing to do with this war. Rallies in public places are fine. Creating gridlock and giving police a hard time is bad. Some of these people have no clue what they're protesting against and are just part of a flock rebeling against anything they deem evil. When I see these college and highschool kids protesting by blocking streets during rush hour or monopolizing the police (taking them away from REAL crimes) I just wish I could make their lives more difficult with more homework or something. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but for cryin' out loud, don't make others miserable trying to drive your point home.

    1. 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.
  36. 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.

  37. 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".

  38. 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

  39. Re:Protestors by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1) Saddam is far more likely to use his weapons than North Korea is.

    2) Isreal has violated tons of mandates, and has a particularly sinister leader right now. We don't attack them because they're simply not a threat. Though there is a good case to stop supporting them.

    3) Saddam isn't linked to 9/11. But I'm sure he wouldn't mind it one bit if some Al Quaeda boys borrowed some weapons to blow up New York. Oh please, you say? Al Quaeda doesn't like the beer-drinking, cursing, sacreligious Saddam? Well guess what? They hate us more.

    4) China's government is on a remarkable progression to more Democracy and free thinking. I know because I lived there (I'm not Chinese either). Their human rights records are bad, but they'll get better.

    5) The majority of the world isn't ready to cut off all diplomatic ties to the US because of the war (they might disagree, but only a few countries like France and Russia are really rabidly anti-war). That would be political suicide for them. Also, let's take France for instance. I thear a lot of folks saying "it's all about the oil." It is. France gets most of their oil from Iraq. It's no wonder they don't want us in there. Do you really believe the French are so anti-us involvement because they sympathize for the people in Iraq? Come on!

    6) Iraq does pose a threat. They've got the weapons, and Saddam is crazy enough to use them. Don't believe me? We gave him weapons of mass destruction in the early 80's when he was fighting Iran. He used some against Iran, but there are others that are unaccounted for. Don't blame me as an American for being a little bit worried that he could use them (or being extremely pissed off at the lack of foresight the Reagan Administration had for giving them to him). Hell he's been dodging weapons inspectors for some time.

    --
    Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
  40. *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.

  41. 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?

  42. Seabornes by bahwi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow. The people that hacked seabornes.com must be really intelligent. At the bottom it says USG (Unix Security Guards). But viewing source comes up with this:

    meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document
    meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 9"
    meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 9"

    I'm not saying people who use Unix don't use Windows, but how many use Word to write HTML pages? What ever happened to notepad?

  43. Re:Protestors by Telastyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Like I said, that's what my brain does to try to 'justify' something so that it doesn't bother me so much.

    Personally I think that American citizens should rise up in mass protest and remove the current administration from office. Others... disagree to say the least. In the end, the best thing for *me* to do is probably go about my business while trying to ignore something I cannot help. So that's what I do. (besides complaining about it on slashdot)

  44. 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.

  45. whitehouse.net by Spazmania · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There was also a rumor spreading around Europe and Russia (primarily Germany and Russia) that the White House web page had been hacked. This rumor was false; the URL reported was http://www.whitehouse.net/index2.html

    The rumor was enough to generate 4,600,000 hits in a 72-hour period that normally sees only 100,000.

    I thought it was a DDOS until I analyzed the logs. It was about 75% folks linking from email and 25% folks linking from various web based message boards. About 60% went straight to index2.html while 40% went to the home page.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  46. Re:Heroes by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative
    Point of information: Chirac is a hardline right-winger in charge of a conservative government. There's nothing "left wing" about him or it, and there's nothing left wing about businesses climbing over themselves to wallow in profits dealing first-come first-served either.

    Anti-war does not mean left-wing, as those fine fellows at the Cato Institute will point out.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  47. Not true any more by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sure they can carpet bomb areas, but the B-52 can hold any number of precision guided munitions - like a large number of tomahawk-style guided missiles (larger versions though, forget the name).

    In this war we do see ground forces really going in, much more so than the previous Iraq conflict which was much more an air war.

    In a brief interview on CNN, a military analyst was saying that only 10% of the munitions dropped in the gulf war were precision - this time it will be about 80%.

    So the introduction B-52 does not necessarily mark the end of precision targeting. Plus if they do carpet bomb, it would likely be large armor divisions somewhere in the desert... but this time around I think they'd rather not even do that, and have those soldiers give up rather than just kill them.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  48. 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
  49. 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.

  50. 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.
  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. Re:Protestors by Serveert · · Score: 2, Informative

    Are these his reasons?:

    March 18, 2003
    Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
    Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

    (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

    (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

    Sincerely,
    GEORGE W. BUSH

    If so, please show evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11. Thanks in advance.

    --
    2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
  54. 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.

  55. Webcams in iraq? by JayateMo · · Score: 2, Interesting



    I was trying to find a webcam located in Iraq but to no avail. Dont they have computers there??

    1. Re:Webcams in iraq? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even if they had one, the 2 main iraqi sites are of the net, the nameserver of www.uruklink.net, NIC1.BAGHDADLINK.net is returning a different bogus IP every 32 seconds. The original IP, 62.145.94.237 behind satelite, is not returning packets. Also www.iraqi-mission.org is no longer available.

      Is this the US goverment hacking these servers, or is it script kiddies having a field day?

  56. 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.

  57. Re:Protestors by Maeryk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is hardly a reason to go to war. There is no reason why someone is his own country should not be allowed to tell the US to 'stick it' once and a while. Additionally the demand that Hussein leave Iraq is insane.

    Oh great guru, I have seen the light! YOu are correct.. a man who gassed his own people, and practiced genocide against another, and has consistantly warred with his neighbors to the point of requiring coalition action should be allowed to reign unchecked. And the Holy UN, which imposed sanctions on him 12 years ago and now refuses to even honor or look at those sanctions which have been broken time and again, and refuses to take any action other than followign a rather scripted show of giving "neutral inspectors" things to see but keeping them away from certain areas. You are right.. there is no reason for war here.. let him continue beheading women on the street, and imprisoning and torturing people for 14 years because they sold a roll of film to an undercover military agent.

    I agree that Hussein probably has ties to what America has defined as terrorism, but so what? How many puppet regimes have we propped up? How many American dollars buy weaponry for foreign nations as we watch the bloodshed from afar. How many countries must we occupy before we can truly feel safe about the state of the world? All of them?

    You counter-argue against yourself in this statement. If we "occupy" a country, we are evil.. because we are taking them over. If we hand the country over to the best pro-tem government we can find or allow to be created from the residents, and arm them so they can _keep_ their country (which is the real issue in that part of the world) we are also evil when we find out they have gone bad. (See also, Shah, Ayatollah, Hussein, Noriega.)

    Let me ask you this.. how many american dollars have gone in the last 12 years for humanitarian aid to Iraq, and oil-for-food programs, only to watch it taken by the republican guard and used to feed the military, not the people? How many
    "innocent civilians" have died because he wanted to test a germ weapon on someone, and had only his own people to do it with? How many people has he run through a plastic-shredding machine designed for recycling?

    There are many good reasons to go to war. But one of the _most_ asinine arguments against this particular war I have seen so far is that "innocent civilians" may get hurt. As a great number of ex-pat iraqis have said, even during a war, life would be better than it was under Hussein.

    It saddens me that this once great nation has now become the school yard bully of our humble ball of mud.

    We arent the bully. the UN is the bully. Apparently out of its ass it pulls decisions about what countries can mass murder their citizens or other countries citizens, and who cannot. Once it has decided that, it sends in nations with their hands tied to "keep the peace". Or it refuses to enforce some embargoes
    because key nations choose to get around it, but enforces others that end up destroying entire cultures and ways of life.

    "we" cannot move against china. We dont have the manpower. Nor does the rest of Europe want to, due to close proximity and the chance of ass-kicking they would recieve. Of course, the way to stop it would be to bankrupt them by not buying their crappy products.. but good ole "Pro USA" Wal-Mart continues to sell crappy Chinese products at a much lower rate than comparable american products, meanwhile bemoaning the loss of jobs and manufacturing.

    If 1/10th of the "protesters" realized that what they hate about this country is entirely within their control to fix (The job situation, the economy, "big business screwing the little guy") and put half as much effort into fixing it, rather than making misspelled peace signs or making themselves throw up in a federal building in California, I would have a lot more respect for their cause. But as it is, I view about half of the loudest ones as lobotomized morons who believe everything MTV has to say and could read the WSJ if they were forced to because the big words would throw them off.

    Maeryk

    --
    Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
  58. 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).

  59. Thanks for posting at end of day.... by caffeinex36 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Saved all us information security folks the grief of our non-technical managers asking if we are going to get hacked...

    -Rob

  60. 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
  61. Re:Protestors by freejung · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I wish I had been there when this guy was asking his question. I oppose the war strongly, and I can explain to you pretty well both "why it's happening" according to the Bush admin and the mass media, and why it's really happening.

    "Saddam is a bad guy." pretty much covers the pro-war position.

    This document pretty well explains the real reasons behind the war. Basically, US long-range global strategic interests (i.e. world domination) demand a massively increased military presence in the Gulf. This means invasion and occupation. And they have to justify it somehow...

  62. site at work got hacked by Jett · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The website we run at work was defaced by "Hackers Against War", they exploited a bug in the software we use (php-nuke) to replace all the stories on the front page with an inane antiwar statement and comments in French about their feelings for some girl. The pathetic thing is that our site already had a lot of antiwar articles up on it, so if their true motives were to express an antiwar opinion they failed horribly in that they obscured substantive antiwar commentary with their drivel AND forced us to take the site offline while we fixed things.
    While I'm sure there are some groups out there with genuine political motives, based on this and some other things I've seen I really believe that this is just scriptkiddies looking for something trendy to do.

    1. Re:site at work got hacked by Jett · · Score: 2, Informative

      forgot to include a URL for anyone who wants to see the site, it's http://resnet.evergreen.edu

      we left one of their messages up there if you want to see it, it should be down the page some by now, its title is "Hackers Against War"

  63. 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?

  64. Re:Protestors by Jazu · · Score: 2, Funny

    >>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.

    REAL Americans swallow BUSH'S probaganda hook, line, and sinker.

    --
    My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
  65. Re:Protestors by nahual · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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... )"

    uhmmm I supose Canada an Mexico do not matter.

    Here President Fox had a hard time deciding what to do.

    By polls 75% of the populations opose the war.
    All the poilitical parties oposed the war.
    The congress oposed the war.
    The Senate oposed the war.
    Then press oposed the war

    But the Canacintra (The coalition of bussines men) insist to suport USA because they fear of the economic penalties that have been warned to Mexico by the embassy of US. (The insist they were against the war, but that economic realities were more important)

    Finally he decided to do what democratic contry should do... altiugh eventually Mexico did not have to cast a vote, it was no secret what it was.

    So i guess that country smaller than Mexico have to face the economic realities...

    Bye the way. In Japan, 70% opose the war, Spain, 69% opose, Of UK I am not shure..

  66. 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."

  67. Re:Protestors by Purple+Library+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

    You want to know why you're at war? Here's the link: http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsrepo rts.htm Go there and download the "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," report. Note that it's dated 2000. Note that it was written or backed by a number of people now influential in the Bush administration. Note that it calls for invading Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and possibly others, as well as greatly expanding the number and coverage of US military bases. Note at one point the open wish that some "Pearl harbor type" event would at some point take place to furnish the political will necessary to embark on this course. Honestly, we protestor types don't have to find dissidents or conspiracy theories any more. We can just take the frightening facts from government figures' own webpages. Rufus Polson finally got himself a login