Slashdot Mirror
Hackers Take Aim at Republicans
An anonymous reader writes "Wired reports-- Online protests targeting GOP websites could turn out to be more than symbolic during this month's Republican National Convention, possibly blocking a critical communications tool for the party... "We want to bombard (the Republican sites) with so much traffic that nobody can get in," said CrimethInc, a member of the so-called Black Hat Hackers Bloc. It's one of several groups planning to distribute software tools to reload Republican sites over and over again."
If memory serves, this was the asshat who got escorted out of a panel he was giving at Defcon once his talk started to descend into advocating violent action against the RNC.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. If someone wants to impact the upcoming election, they should go door to door convincing people locally to vote for Kerry (or Nader), contribute to campaigns or volunteer to actually work with other human beings in a campaign office. Slamming a web site (which is just plain silly anyway, and not "hacking") amounts to childs play that wouldn't impact anything in the scheme of things, but is more akin to childish vandalism.
And not all "hackers" are anti-Bush btw.
I think you have Republicans confused with neocon/theocons. Real Republicans are all about individual rights. Look it up. Some of us Republicans are a bit annoyed with the hijacking of the party, though I am not about to become a Democrat over it.
Plus every time some genius comes along and commits a crime in the name of a progressive cause, we have to deal with a dozen media pundits saying, "See? Look what Liberals will do. Will Kerry supporters stop at nothing? Oh, these immoral people."
Then we have to deal with average people joining the Republican party just because it offers a sane choice compared to the nutjob left wingers. Hell, even crazies like Anne Coulter seem sane compared to hacker groups actively working to break the law in the name of democracy.
For years I was afraid to even admit I was a liberal. Not because I was embarrassed to care about progressive goals, but because I had to deal with being associated with misguided wierdos like these. I wish there was a t-shirt..."I'm against Bush but I don't want to kill him or take down his server or rage about how he's a filthy liar. I just want people not to vote for him because he hasn't done a very good job."
Hey freaks: now you're ju
And remember...
...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." - John Kerry, 1/23/03
"We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation.
Other Kerry quotes of interest...
Now now now....
They're not stupid. They just stopped advancing technologically, socially, and politically around the same time fire was discovered.
Compare and contrast that with the Democrats. They're willing to jump on, over, and under any random bandwagon that happens to come along in the technological, social, or political field.
Since the independents and libertarians are usually the ones driving the bandwagons, and they're so scatterbrained and disorganized that the wagon is all over the road and running down everyone else in the field, we can't really look to them for any clarity either.
The moral of this story is that they're all stupid, and people should just try thinking for themselves for a change.
Of course.... most people are stupid..... so....
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Are they going to claim that DDOS is freedom of speech?
Im not a huge George W. fan, I dont like his views on immigration, IMO he isn't a true reagan conservative which is what we need.
Kerry on the other hand is either a liar or a war criminal- "I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that," Kerry said. "However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty." - John Kerry Source Included,I hate facts pulled from no where
Did he do those things? I dont know. But either he did and he is a war criminal, or he didnt and he's a liar. It's one or the other. Living in rhode island with a fiance in MA, I see what Kerry is like up close. He doesnt do much. I just wouldnt trust him with the keys to the country.
I figure I should probably answer your comment about making the middle east less of a hotbed of extremism. In the late 1800's, germany wanted an African Colony. It had finally become a unified country, and was begining to flex it's muscles. But in the process of taking that African Colony, it managed to cause France and England to ally themselves together. Now, we tend to think of france and england as friends now, but back then, they had just been through 500 years of war(give or take). So it was a big deal to get these two countries to put aside their differences and join forces.
The same thing is happening now to the US. We are turning many of our NATO allies against us, and many of our allies from other parts of the world. They are just as important, if not more so in combating the old problem of anti-american extremism. The problem is, the world is not broken into two halves anymore, since the end of the cold war, and the US is not the superpower it once thought it was. I worry that Bush is isolating us from the rest of the world with his tough talk. Tough talk is necessary sometimes, but are we actually able to back it up?
The current situation in Iraq seems to imply that we can't.
BTW, the Spanish are cowards for caving to terrorists.
I am Spanish. What's funny about this is that the Spanish people reacted not out of fear but anger. Ask any Spaniard you meet - did you vote because you were afraid of another attack? (Kiss Bush's)Assnar served only George Bush's agenda, and put Spanish troops in Iraq despite over 90% of the population opposing the war. The fact is that he made our country less safe by allowing the Spanish military to be led by GWB, and we were tired of a president who acted the way the president of the US wanted, not the people of Spain.
And if you're a marine, aren't you concerned about the fact that GWB never served his country?
Under the previous 12 years of sanctions, groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have estimated that approximately 50,000 Iraqis have died each year. When queried about realistic options on how to deal with Iraq, pre-war, the anti-war position unanimously chanted "continue sanctions".
Funny how, pre-Iraq-war, virtually the same crowd of people was vehemently opposed to sanctions in Iraq, due to its detrimental effect on the people of Iraq, while having virtually no effect on the leadership; indeed, effectively strengthening Hussein's power.
So now, what of these 600,000-some dead Iraqi people under sanctions? That approximately 50,000 a year, the number we were always bombarded with during the tired "no blood for oil" protest of the 90s?
Well, here's some numbers for you:
Since March of 2003, *including* the 10000-15000 Iraqis US and coalition forces are estimated to have killed during the invasion, there has actually been a NET PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, on the order of the thousands. A statistically significant PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, all from the relatively minimal infrastructure and services improvements made by coalition forces since March 2003. That's how little Saddam cared for his own people, without regard to sanctions. No matter your position on the Iraq war, our direct action has saved, and will continue to save, THOUSANDS of lives of innocent Iraqis. Remember: the only alternative course of action was continuing sanctions. Even the radical idea of lifting sanctions wouldn't have changed Saddam's focus from only concentrating services and resources on Baghdad, leaving over 50% of the population to suffer and fend for itself, not to mention that France, Germany, and Russia would never have allowed the lifting of sanctions, short of military action (which we took). Think about that: exclusively because of US action, statistically, thousands of Iraqis have lived, who otherwise wouldn't have. Countless thousands of others will enjoy this same future, to say nothing of access to basic amenities of life previously not available to rural areas.
This of course, ignores the whole concept that sometimes it's necessary to take lives to save far more. Sometimes I wonder if the US is the same country that effectively fought WWII...
I'd add to this that post-war communism in the Third World was to a large degree an anti-colonial movement, an ideology to rally people to rise against the foreign rulers.
I'd suggest that radical Islam plays a similar role in the middle east. It provides an ideological and cultural counterpoint to an invasive foreign system. Not only has the western world colonized the rest of the world on an economic and cultural level, the US is now recolonizing the middle east on a physical level too.
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
This comment is so rich. I can only spend a little time on it, but here's a shot:
First, let's talk about references. When I say something like x is due to y, I like to back it up with something like according to z(www.z.com), you get the picture.
Now the "Germany KNOWS that Saddam did have WMD" statement sounds a little overstated - I would assume you are referring to international findings of that nature and not the Germans in particular?
On that note, almost every country has WMD right now. I think that makes the WMD case for war a bit daft, but that's just a personal opinion.
I'm at a bit of a loss on this statement:
"Are we to believe that in the interim period, Iraq secretly destroyed all of its remaining weapons, on its own, with no supervision or involvement of outside monitors, all with no proof or records"
Let's try CNN on this one. Looks like they were destroying them right up to the war.
Here's another idea I take issue with:
"it's not just about bombing people into oblivion; it's about encouraging free government with a free flow of information"
The question I have here is why, after over a year, have we still seen none of this come to fruition? Sure, we handed over power, but to an unelected government that we selected. Also, how did we contribute to the free flow of information by banning newspapers?
You go on to insist that this was somehow was positive for "most of the civilized world", but offer no rational for that logic. I think it's much safer to assume that the real winners here are defence contractors tied to the Whitehouse
"People think that the US just wants to arrogantly steamroll people..." Please don't talk about the actions of the state as the actions of the US. I'm a part of this great country, and like many others, I consider this war a shameful crime against humanity.
This is what happens when you block phone lines so Democrats can't get rides to the polls.
Wait though, the whole Alien hive mentality is fairly similar to conservative right-wing corporate America. And it appeared that the Predators had a somewhat progressive agenda, even giving up on a thousands year old tradition for the sake of the common good.
Crap, you've got my mind all wondering which side fits in with my own agenda, being a part of a crack team of Antarctict archeologists and all.
Because Republicans are fascists? (That's only half joking.)
Seriously, though, Bush's attitude is "my way or the highway." This even has some Republicans bristling. Take John McCain for istance. The Democrats are trying to position themselves as the party of inclusion, a party big enough and strong enough for a variety of viewpoints. Most of this is because they had to field a candidate and the Republicans' role is now to march in lock-step with whatever Bush (by which I mean Karl Rove) trots out.
A LOT of Republicans are wondering what happened to fiscal repsonsibility. But you don't hear much about it. It's much safer to attack the external target -- the Democrats than to question the policies of our Great Leader, or the internal workings of your own party.
"Better to have never served at all, than to quit like a coward after four months."
The truth is that hundreds of civilians and many a soldier from Spain have died because we supported the US, however not a single US solider has ever died for supporting Spain. And with "thankful" comments like the ones uttered by the previous poster, I sincerelly hope not a single drop of Spanish blood is ever wasted for America ever again.
For a preson coming from a country than one hundred years ago declared war on us, and than fifty years ago decided to starve us to death you certainly have some brass balls asking our soldiers to die for your comfy little behind.
Next time you go and pick up the gun and you get your butt over there... is this what the "land of the brave, home of the free" has de-evolved into? "better to have never served at all" LOL!
Do these guys have no shame. This is supposed to be a democracy, and they're talking about attacking a public communications channel of one of the main parties during the runup to the election. Deliberately targetting their ability to campaign during that election.