Slashdot Mirror


4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d

gobbo writes "The buzz amongst my Muslim acquaintances is that the al-Jazeera site is under "cyber-attack." Shortly after posting photos of mangled Iraqi children the server became unavailable. I don't have satellite TV to see if they are reporting anything on al-Jazeera itself, but pinging their name servers fails too. For those who don't already know, the al-Jazeera channel is a pan-Arabic satellite TV channel out of Qatar." While I am certain many h4x0rs are political, I can't help thinking that script kiddies are like moths to the flame of rising page views. (this was initially posted incorrectly, and has been moved to the proper date)

8 of 1,013 comments (clear)

  1. Weird by bleckywelcky · · Score: 4, Insightful


    First time I've seen a story that doesn't appear on the main /. page but ends up surfacing in the Older Stuff side bar.

    I do have to say that I am saddened to see this happen because although Al Jazeera may have been biased on the side of Iraq, it is good to have alternative news sources to get the other side's story from. And despite what many people may whole-heartedly claim, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NBC, etc all do have a sense of American bias in them. That's besides the fact that half of their reporting is so horrible, it is actually hard to watch sometimes. I've found myself turning off the TV numerous times in response to my disgust for some of the stuff they hack out as "news". Although, I have found the embedded reporter's reports quite interesting, and you can always catch the various briefings, latest field updates, and general news easily enough. But, these agencies spend way to much time on sensationalism, heart-string-picking, etc.

    I hope Al Jazeera can get their site back up soon.

    1. Re:Weird by Kasperitus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There was an article in the Wall St Journal a few days ago discussing the bias of US reporters. They mentioned that many of the "embedded" journalists use the personal pronoun "we" all the time. They compared that with a clip from a British reporter who was careful enough to detach himself, referring to the soldiers using "they". "They are encountering resistance..." "They are approaching Baghdad..." etc. Its a noticable difference.

      The article also mentioned that BBC seems to be doing a better job trying objective than US stations.

  2. Re:Slashdot effect on a global scale? by EZCheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll believe this is a DDOS when I see the IRC transcripts from the people claiming to be the perpetrators (if that's not proof, I don't know what is :) Till then, this is Al-Jazeera crying because their site couldn't handle sudden worldwide interest.

    According to the article you cited, the DDOS attack is being directed at their name servers, and not the web server (which is why I'm not getting "unable to resolve host" messages). Name servers generally don't wither under high volume - this seems more like a deliberate attack than a large-scale Slashdot effect.

  3. Freedom of the Press by ewe2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find the apathy on this site towards the possible gagging of a media organization disturbing. On a TV report this week, I learnt a lot about al-Jazzeera. Yes, they are pan-Arabic. Yes, they are critical of the US. They've also been threatened by every single Arab country in the region - closed down, ambassadors recalled, physical attacks. And it was bombed by the US in the first Gulf War when it reported the killing of civilians in a supposedly military target.

    You can't have it both ways, even in a war. The Net is being used for some of the most blatant propaganda I've ever seen, but shutting down the Arab side of the argument isn't going avoid bigger problems later.

    --
    insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
  4. Re:Military targets? by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Would similar online media outlets be similarly classified?

    It's not a "similar" outlet. Unless you mean to bomb any foreign media that don't toe Rumsfeld's line. In spite of David Letterman sketches, al-Jazeera is neither Afghani or Iraqi, but is based in Qatar.

    See this article on its origins.

    Today, al-Jazeera is staffed by many of the same [BBC] journalists I saw weeping in London that day, including Azar. It is the lone Arabic broadcast outlet to put truth and objectivity above even its survival. For its pains during the five years of its existence, it has been attacked by virtually every government in the Middle East.
    They've also got a new English service. (Which was heavily overloaded even before this, so you'll have a hard time seeing it.)
  5. Re:Military targets? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    www.arabnews.com had an article comparing al-Jazeera and CNN.

    CNN portrayed as lying, deceitful, mouthpiece of the US administration.

    al-Jazeera portrayed as a font of wisdom and truth.

    Both statements are crap CNN may well sanitise its stories, and portray the US side (hey..it's a US company)

    But al-Jazeera is at least equally as bad.

    In reference to the current fighting...
    Does AJ show pics and video of Iraqi troops hiding among civilians and using them as shields? No
    Does AJ show report on the Iraqi troops using a hospital for a weapons cache? No
    Does AJ report on the use of explosives at the oil well heads? No.
    Does AJ report on the ecological disaster of lighting oil filled trenches on fire? No

    If you want to say CNN is not reporting 'fairly', OK..that may well be true.

    But please do NOT hold up AJ as the bastion of truth and objectivity.

  6. Re:Military targets? by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Insightful
    My personal take is that you can never get a true picture from a single side. The world is saturated with American media. Seeing news from other sources acts as a sanity check.

    Moreover to a viewer saturated with American media, these other sources are likely to appear as 'biased'

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  7. Re:A short history of how the U.S. got into this m by ainsoph · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I will add to this if you please. The portion I am adding reads like a conspiracy theory. Its not. It has been documented in many places, including PBS and the White House itself.

    I wont go into details here, I will allow one to read the material themselves. You can also watch the video as PBS online is currently hosting a story frontline did about the mess.

    In brief:

    The Project for the New American Century is a DC based think tank that has imagined a world under complete US military and economic domination (or "freedom" as it were). They have fiddled with and written documents concerning a post cold war world where the USA has become the Worlds Only Superpower and what that means from a Strategic viewpoint.

    In the early days, Paul Wolfowitz produced a document that detailed the expansion of the American empire that seemed too radical at the time and was cleaned up and rewritten and stowed away. Over time, and through the most recent Coup by this incredibly radical group of men, this updated document, with the help of the PNAC, became the National Security Strategy Of the United States. Most chilling about this turn of eventls and policy is the new found policy of "pre-emption". Which I think we are seeing now in the creation of the 51st state.

    Also chilling (to me anyway) is the fact that this is the "official story", the one being reported by the obviously biased media.

    Anyway.. some more links..

    CBC.ca's take.

    More Canadian Insight

    The Frontline Special