Slashdot Mirror


Al-Qaeda Web Sites Go Offline

thefickler writes "Four out of the five Al-Qaeda online forums have disappeared. The terrorist group used these forums to relay messages to its supporters. The four that have gone missing seem to have taken a hit back on September 10, the day before the annual video marking the 9/11 attacks was due to be disseminated. No one knows who is responsible for the sites' disappearance."

284 comments

  1. good. by swschrad · · Score: 3, Funny

    but you know it means they're doing something else now.

    I suspect it's how Sarah Palin jokes are strung together that is the new medium. they're ubiquitous and cannot be stopped by any force known to mankind.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:good. by moosesocks · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I suspect it's how Sarah Palin jokes are strung together that is the new medium. they're ubiquitous and cannot be stopped by any force known to mankind.

      Vote for somebody else, and she'll fade back into irrelevance.

      On the other hand, if you're a political impersonator, an Obama presidency could be bad for business, unless he selects a particularly humorous cabinet.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    2. Re:good. by oldhack · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I suspect it's how Sarah Palin jokes are strung together that is the new medium. they're ubiquitous and cannot be stopped by any force known to mankind.

      Yep. Our only hope is the womankind.

      Come to think of it, man, that's true in so many ways.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    3. Re:good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      two words: black joke

    4. Re:good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha I'd mod you up funny if I had them. That gave me a chuckle...

    5. Re:good. by allgoodnamesaretaken · · Score: 0

      yep, they have gone super-stealth-underground-mode; it's 69chan from here on in...

    6. Re:good. by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Huh? Is that some kind of joke whose punchline went over my head?

      If you'd said that Sarah Palin, with her rambling incoherence, is the Dan Quayle 2.0, I'd understand you. But Joe Biden? What exactly does he have in common with Quayle?

      We're talking about the same Dan Quayle right? The one who is the sole reason that George W. Bush isn't the dumbest politician America has ever seen?

    7. Re:good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....with words like "nuculear", I have to disagree.

    8. Re:good. by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      hirez proof

      It happens to be, as Barack Says, a three letter word: JOBS. J - O - B - S. Jobs.

      Do you think that's NOT on par with potatoe? And he says stupid shit all the time ("I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy").

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    9. Re:good. by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      Yes, that sounds pretty stupid.

      But he has a LONG way to go from a couple of gaffes to the years of systematic idiocy that was Dan Quayle. I am pretty sure that there are entire yearly joke calendars filled with dumb things that Quayle said while he was V.P. (I'm pretty sure such things exist for GWB as well). I doubt you could fill a week with the dumb Biden comments thus far. I watched a brief bit of the VP "debate" and Biden looked smarter to me than Palin did. So aside from some gaffes I don't see him being systematically brain-dead stupid like Quayle was or Dubya is.

    10. Re:good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to bash someone that you have no clue about. Do you believe every stereotype that is propagated about someone? What are your criticisms against Quayle? Let me guess, "potatoe". He was given answer cards with the wrong spelling and instead of trusting his own judgment he went with the cards. That's his only mistake. The guy was NOT an idiot though. I'm sick of bullshit like this getting propagated as unexamined truth. I really could care less about that Pat Sajak look alike but he's not what you're making him out to be and you don't even care to find out the truth.

    11. Re:good. by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? I remember clearly the entire 4 years of Quayle's vice presidency. He was dumb as dirt. My particular favorite was the one where he went on and on and blathered completely unintelligable bullshit about Hawaii.

      Here I found a nice little montage on YouTube for you to enjoy:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIFggCQv4J4

      Now THAT is one stupid motherfucker. ALthough, for many of those gaffes, he appears to be high or drunk or something. Maybe he was a genius with a drug habit?

    12. Re:good. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Yes, that sounds pretty stupid.

      But he has a LONG way to go from a couple of gaffes to the years of systematic idiocy that was Dan Quayle. I am pretty sure that there are entire yearly joke calendars filled with dumb things that Quayle said while he was V.P. (I'm pretty sure such things exist for GWB as well). I doubt you could fill a week with the dumb Biden comments thus far. I watched a brief bit of the VP "debate" and Biden looked smarter to me than Palin did. So aside from some gaffes I don't see him being systematically brain-dead stupid like Quayle was or Dubya is.

      I'm sorry, Quayle was a couple of years at most, Biden has been making comments like those quoted above for 35 years.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    13. Re:good. by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, Quayle was a couple of years at most, Biden has been making comments like those quoted above for 35 years.

      Are you telling us Quayle made sense before he became VP?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    14. Re:good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea and Nobel Prize winner James Watson resigned over a flub he made where he said Africans are less intelligent than other people. Shit happens. People make mistakes. Yes, even intelligent people.

      All you have proven is that you're a fucking moron that doesn't know that being able to speak well isn't a measure of intelligence.

      This is why our society is so fucked up. Dumbass know-it-alls like yourself making "gut feeling" decisions based on nothing but superficial observations.

      "I saw Quayle speak in public so I am qualified to talk about his level of intelligence"

      Bahahaha... you fucking dope. I wonder why they don't give out IQ tests on a crowded stage in a full auditorium?

    15. Re:good. by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      I've provided documented evidence of how dumb Quayle was. You have provided nothing. Anyway, I'm done exchanging barbs with an anonymous pussy.

  2. Yeah... so what? by vintagepc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder as to the real value of posting something like this; Who says that they have not devised some more secure method of communication. Sounds like false hope to me.

    --
    Evolution - Est. 4500000000 B.C. Don't piss in the gene pool.
    1. Re:Yeah... so what? by clang_jangle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More to the point: who says they were ever the real thing in the first place? The government? Puh-leeeeze.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    2. Re:Yeah... so what? by Macrat · · Score: 5, Funny

      The government budget to run these sites has been transferred to bailing out the banks.

    3. Re:Yeah... so what? by moteyalpha · · Score: 1

      I agree, with the revelation that running a spam network is okay, I could imagine that some interpol guy could say that having an operated terrorism site would sound like a good idea and they could have dozens that put out bad gimp-shopped© images of real events and claim responsibility. They could even post targets of terrorists as terror targets. FUD is free to be used by anybody.

    4. Re:Yeah... so what? by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, the "terrorists" are done cleaning up after manipulating the market and making billions of whatever currency they use, so there's no need for those sites anymore. They have a new geocities URL. And will be conducting business as usual. Just like WAMUJPMorganChase.

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    5. Re:Yeah... so what? by inhuman_4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are probably right about the terrorists having a more secure means of communication. So really this does nothing to stop the terrorists.

      BUT, it may hurt thier propaganda machine a bit. I don't know how popular these sites where, or what the content was like. But if shutting them down means that a few more people don't sign up then it is probably not a bad thing.

      Of course they are now missing out on the ability to track IPs that visit those sites, assuming that they were doing that before they shut them down.

    6. Re:Yeah... so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government budget to run these sites has been transferred to bailing out the banks.

      This is probably the smartest commend I've read here!

      Al-Qaeda was a CIA DB name for the mujahedin back in the 80's.

      They are 100% CIA asset, commanded and funded by the CIA.

      Now lets joke on the truth:

      So either they removed the funds, or Al-Qaeda ppl are too busy growing heroin for the NYSE bubble.

      Americans be aware: You are a great nation, awesome people, and your government is making you look really REALLY bad. When the BIG shit hits the fan "they" will bail out, and you will take the heat! Don't you feel your freedom fading away? The world will hate you.

    7. Re:Yeah... so what? by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      The government? Puh-leeeeze.

      The constant puerile slashbot claims that everything is a government conspiracy are getting tedious.

      Believe it or not, democratic governments are not evil machines dedicated to grinding the faces of their citizens in the dust, and their employees are not brainwashed drones. They're people, just like you and me. Often they make mistakes; occasionally they actually do something malicious. Rarely is either successfully covered up.

    8. Re:Yeah... so what? by eli+pabst · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hope that's a joke. The formation of Al Qaeda didn't occur until August 1988, at the very end of the Soviet invasion. It wasn't a CIA database name, it was short for Al Qaeda al-Askariya (the military base). It wasn't directly funded by the CIA either. The CIA gave money, which was matched by the Saudi's to the Pakistani ISI who then channeled it to the various Mujaheddin groups (of which bin Ladin was not one). He had most of his own funding from his families money and from Saudi donors. The fact that he was an Arab made him an outsider to the other Mujaheddin leaders.

    9. Re:Yeah... so what? by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      The Anonymous Troll said

      Sand ni... people living in caves, devising a more secure method of communication? I don't think so. They probably forgot to pay the dial-up bill.

      I hate feeding the trolls, but this one has a kernel of truth with respect to American perception of Afghanis.

      Sure the Taliban and Al-Queda might be backwards religious extremists,but they are extremists with a great deal of cash from the opium trade, hidden Muslim investors, and possibly other funding. My guess would be that they are retooling their communications. These are guys that know how to fight. I think we remember how well they did against the Russians. Their country may be destroyed, but fighting is all they know.

      For all we know right now Al-Queda is bunkering down right along the Pakistan border, flush with cash and thinking new strategies to use against Coalition forces during the winter. It would be a good tactic to shut down your known communication lines and let your enemy guess what the hell is going on. Hell, they could be communicating locally by braiding the hair of their herded goats in cryptographic fashion. How's that for tinfoil hat wearing conspiracies! The point is we don't know when the lights go out. We're smart people. If you have to be out in the mountains for an extended period of time, what do you use to electronically communicate with the outside world? Cel phones? Satellite phones? Satellite broadband links? FTP riddles from the Qu'ran to your best buddy's blog?

      As for V.P.s Sarah Palin, Joe Biden. Who would you pick as president? Chances are they are going to be president one way or another.

  3. That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, really. Apparently.

    In one of the most transparently stupid "LOOK! TERRORISTS!" stories to date, The Times has "exclusively" published a report claiming terrorists are hiding their secret terrorist messages inside child pornography. Because, y'know, obviously you're going to hide your messages somewhere already illegal rather than in wedding photos or LOLcats.

    I'm pleased to say that the commenters on the article - and UK newspaper online comments are one of the purest sources of raw stupid on the planet - are already condemning this as obvious Home Office press-release ware.

    The Times has been spotted running press releases for the Home Office before with jawdroppingly stupid scare stories. Coincidentally, the Home Office's call for the police to be able to hold people 42 days without charge just got rejected. Obviously not linked.

    I wrote a blog post on it, but I'm not sure it's obviously a parody of a stupid thing that someone actually tried to seriously push.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
    1. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by David+Gerard · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh, and there's a firehose story on the subject which could do with clicking up. Blithering stupidity is best dealt with by wide exposure.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    2. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those reports you mention were all over the net / newspapers here recently, and I fully agree with your views on that. Then again, the submission I see below yours is #25426711 stating The trouble begins......when the drums stop. rj, and I read a lot of similar opinions in the newspaper sites' comments sections I frequent, so it does indeed work as intended.

    3. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a stupid thing that someone actually tried to seriously push."

      You mean like your linking to your own blog?

    4. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by writermike · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, really. Apparently.

      In one of the most transparently stupid "LOOK! TERRORISTS!" stories to date, The Times has "exclusively" published a report claiming terrorists are hiding their secret terrorist messages inside child pornography.

      OH MY GOD! Those long nights where I stared intently, deeply into into the Goatse image. I knew there was something else there. IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

      --
      If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
    5. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Sebilrazen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Shit, now the doublethink has got me.

      I read that terrorists, and by terrorists I'm going to go with Radical Islamic Fundamentalists since the /. article is about Al-Qaeda, are using child porn to hide their coded messages. I can't shake that this is both utterly stupid and utterly brilliant at the same time. Bear with me.

      Utterly stupid since law enforcement already targets this channel, there is no 'free speech' when it involves child porn, and there's news all the time about how these rings get busted, suppliers and consumers alike.

      Utterly brilliant because it is a known channel that has a clientele that takes lots of precautions, they try their best not to get noticed. With the ubiquity of unsecured wireless spots they could effectively get into these rings and do their thing with a high level of anonymity and have the provider of the hot spot be the main target of any fuzz scrutiny. This would also be incredibly disheartening to the investigators, whereas they used to just have to send the messages to decoders and translators, now that message is in a despicable photo or video that someone will have to watch, tell me that isn't going to leave a few scars.

      Then again it could be a cash grab by the agencies that investigate child porn, nothing wrong with more money to fight that evil.

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    6. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why not just hide their message in slashdot troll posts? Not like anyone reads them anyways...unless you know what you're looking for...

    7. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by David+Gerard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Then again it could be a cash grab by the agencies that investigate child porn, nothing wrong with more money to fight that evil."

      The police are all over that. What this is is a push by the Home Office to take more civil rights away.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    8. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Kent+Recal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, ofcourse. It's obviously so much easier to get all your fellow terrorists into a closed child-porn ring in order to exchange messages via steganography than to just install FireGPG and use any friggin' public message board, usenet or, *gasp*, e-mail.

      Seriously, how brain damaged do you have to be to buy into such bullshit?

    9. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Fumus · · Score: 5, Funny

      This would also be incredibly disheartening to the investigators, whereas they used to just have to send the messages to decoders and translators, now that message is in a despicable photo or video that someone will have to watch, tell me that isn't going to leave a few scars.

      So the terrorists should use the goatse guy for hiding their messages. He seems spacious enough.

    10. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      This is the most farcical episode in human history, Al-Qaeda was the name of a CIA database. I read that recent Jacqi Smith "severe end of severe" comment as an admission we're going to see another false flag op. How many Reichstag fires do we need before even the "raw stupid" catch on?

    11. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by azgard · · Score: 1

      Why not just hide their message in slashdot troll posts? Not like anyone reads them anyways...unless you know what you're looking for...

      Maybe that's the real reason behind all those twitter conversations.

    12. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by wellingj · · Score: 2, Funny

      I new there was something evil about LOLcats.

    13. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      I just don't want to know which pixels hide the data.

    14. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by David+Gerard · · Score: 0
      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    15. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by David+Gerard · · Score: 1
      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    16. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by wellingj · · Score: 5, Funny

      HTML FAIL!

    17. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Goaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Blithering stupidity is best dealt with by wide exposure.

      Turns out that that is not the case.

    18. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

      Seriously, how brain damaged do you have to be to buy into such bullshit?

      The current typical American pre-programmed brain will do just fine and that's exactly who this stuff is aimed at.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    19. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I've made my preferences not suck now.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    20. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      So the terrorists should use the goatse guy for hiding their messages. He seems spacious enough.

      As an added bonus, their fellow terrorists will lose the will to live after staring at the goatse guy long enough to decode the message, making them perfect recruits for suicide bombings.

    21. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by fm6 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shut up, Abdul.

    22. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But isn't child porn on their list of immoral acts?

    23. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I read that terrorists, and by terrorists I'm going to go with Radical Islamic Fundamentalists since the /. article is about Al-Qaeda, are using child porn to hide their coded messages. I can't shake that this is both utterly stupid and utterly brilliant at the same time.

      I agree, it is brilliant. I mean, think of it, if they bust these guys, they'd have to arrest themselves!!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    24. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Funny

      No way. Everyone knows the terrorists are really hiding their secret messages in music and movies on BitTorrent sites and in easter eggs contained in cracked software. And the source code for the Linux kernel is also one big long top secret terrorist messages. And if you listen carefully to what Steve Jobs has to say, every third word is accented in a funny way so as to convey a hidden terrorist message.

    25. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But isn't child porn on their list of immoral acts?

      Yes. It fails the critical thinking test entirely. Islamic fundamentalists don't even like regular adult nudity -- possession of child pornography would likely get you executed in Islamist countries.

      It's like saying that Islamic Terrorists are hiding their hidden messages in pictures of Allah.

      Governments pray on public stupidity.

    26. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I'm sure you have thought of this which is why your didn't mention that the reasons that Al Qeada would be looking into hiding information in kiddie porn is exactly because it is already illegal and it already has a secrete network in place. And it make further sense to hide messages inside already illegal content because the dumbass cops stop at the illegal part and likely wouldn't look further to discover the hidden messages. In fact, it makes perfect sense because it is all there, the secrete networks, the distractions if someone discovers it, and when the press makes a news story about it, they move on to something else. Makes a lot more sense that hiding messages in wedding photos or lol cats that everyone has access to and starts to wonder why some are 3-10 meg larger then others.

      I'm pleased to say that the commenters on the article - and UK newspaper online comments are one of the purest sources of raw stupid on the planet - are already condemning this as obvious Home Office press-release ware.

      Yes, I often find it humorous when someone who should know better all the sudden thinks they know it all just to be proven wrong. I'm not saying you have done this but you comment immediately reminded me of the match to a Styrofoam cup gag we used to do in bars as a kid. Here is a hint, the cup won't melt below the liquid line and you can usually get four or five uses out of it before it gets hard and stops working. Yep, your comment right there reminded me of that, where it doesn't matter what others say, you know your right.

    27. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It gets worse, cops aren't usually bright. They look for the evidence of a crime and evidence of who commited them. How many messages were transmitted and actually caught before someone wondered why some Photo's were larger file sizes then other of that something in the back ground was off and could have been used to send a code? I mean when the cops bust a kiddie porn ring, they are more worried about the kiddie porn then anything else.

      I'm also betting that Al Qeada would have just doctored existing kiddie porn too. It isn't like a radical religious group that isn't already known for kiddie porn will take it up for the convenience of communications.

    28. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, shut up you dumb idiot. Like that could ever possibly work? It's morons like this guy that makes me want to blow up and kill the infidels that operate the newspaper stand in Kandahar. I mean really, hiding messages in troll posts? Do us a favor and never post on slashdot ever again. Thanks.

    29. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, THAT was Osama's cave?

    30. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by bytesex · · Score: 1

      The point is that child pornographers might well have secret messages to exchange between themselves. And that's just on top of any old police procedure these days that just leads any digital image through steganography detection automatically.

      IF, and that's a big if, this were actually true, it'd never be accidentally leaked. That's not how intelligence agencies work. My guess is that some child pornographers were trying out their signal reception by hiding fake messages. That or some AQ operative was being very, very stupid.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    31. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the firehose story has already been archived, after only a few comments. Sometimes /. annoys me.

      Here is the comment I would have posted there: ......

      Didn't The Times used to be a reputable newspaper? How can they print this kind of gosh-golly, wide-eyed, verbatim-press-release nonsense?

      The whole tawdry "profession" of journalism needs a radical overhaul.

      Are journalists and publishers so stupid that they cannot see the agenda here? Or are they on the payroll?

    32. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, oh wow, some one a little annoyed today.

      Oh wait, you were making a point of troll posts... i see

    33. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Islamist Fundamentalists are against porn - of any type at all.

      What makes you think they will use porn of any form and piss off other fundamentalists?

    34. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 2, Funny
      The goatse guy needs to step forward and identify himself.

      Seriously, if I were him, I wouldn't want to be associated with terrorists. I'd want to clear my name of such despicable behavior.

    35. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You do know that several of the 9/11 hijackers went to a strip club the night of 9/10?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    36. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wahahahahaha!!!!! Child... pornography...

      Now that I'm (somewhat) done with laughing my ass off... seriously... If Al-Qaeda is still alive 'n kicking then kiddie porn would be the last thing they'll ever use. Why? Well hello! We're dealing with Islamic terrorists who are so frustrated about even seeing girls in bikini's that the last thing they will ever look at is kiddie porn!

    37. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Governments pray on public stupidity.

      Your typo is apt.

    38. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: Al-FAILda

    39. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the exactly opposite experience...

      I remember being secure and confident and innocent. The world was a simple place, filled with natural beauty and wonderment. I had no questions, only answers, and I was at peace and at one with the world.

      Then I opened that image. Nothing in life has made sense since then. Nothing. I am a pale shadow of the man I used to be. Not even a man anymore, just the shadow of a man. I'm numb too, I feel nothing anymore.

      This is a warning to all of you whose psyche's have not been charred by the goatse image... don't look at it. Don't let your curiosity drive you there, and don't be like me and click on a link without verifying where it's actually pointing to. You will lose your innocence and fall from grace and nothing will ever be as it was, ever again.

    40. Re:That's cos they use child porn now. Ya rly. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      That article also goes a long way towards explaining the existence of religions.

  4. Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The sites were no longer needed -- they decided that Facebook was finally good enough for their purposes. Here's A BIG BEAR HUGG!! RAWRRR!

  5. The trouble begins... by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...when the drums stop.

    rj

    1. Re:The trouble begins... by oldhack · · Score: 1

      "where you're going, drums... don't stop."

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    2. Re:The trouble begins... by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Very bad, very bad when drums stop."
      "Why? What happens then?"
      "Bass solo!"

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:The trouble begins... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...when the drums stop.

      rj

      Guitar solo.

    4. Re:The trouble begins... by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      More cowbell !

      --
      Squirrel!
    5. Re:The trouble begins... by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      The drums never stop. The drums, always the sound of drums in my head. The drums, the drums, the never-ending drum-beat... open me you human fool. Open me, summon the light and receive my majesty!

    6. Re:The trouble begins... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true.

      Mod parent to eleven.

  6. Re:fp by BrentH · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think I speak for all of us when I say: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

  7. Take down notice by symes · · Score: 4, Funny

    ZZ Top issued a take down notive under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act...

  8. Hrm... by colonslashslash · · Score: 5, Funny

    US military Cyber Warfare project starts up again, and suddenly Osama's MySpace gets ruined. Coincidence?

    --
    She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
    1. Re:Hrm... by colonslashslash · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Man, the mods collective sense of humor is even lower than usual today...

      --
      She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
    2. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet they simply misread it as "Obama's MySpace webpage gets ruined." (as did I at first, at which point I assumed you were just trolling the usual Obama==terrorist line). Read correctly, your comment is rather funny.

    3. Re:Hrm... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Meh. I think Anonymous would be much more of a destructive force on the internet than the US military. A coordinated hacking effort and couple thousand posts like "OPERATION: BLOW THE PRESIDENT BEGINS NOW" should be enough to kill a terrorist site.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  9. Re:Hmmm. Could it be ..JESUS? by kennedy · · Score: 1

    holy crap - who told you?

    this sounds just like my weekends.

  10. Re:Hmmm. Could it be ..JESUS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    JFK? Is that you?

  11. Re:Hmmm. Could it be ..JESUS? by Curtman · · Score: 1

    Scary, isn't it?

    It's very scary to see people like you get brainwashed this way.

  12. Re:Hmmm. Could it be ..JESUS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, YHBT. The troll here is not at face value, hes trying to get you to believe that he believes that.

  13. Stupid to shut them down. Censorship = wrong by zymano · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everything goes underground then.

  14. From the article... by ffejie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "For al-Qaeda, "these sites are the equivalent of pentagon.mil, whitehouse.gov, att.com," said Evan F. Kohlmann, an expert on online al-Qaeda operations..."

    Apparently he's not an expert on American communications - who get any information from the three sites he called out?

    --
    Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
    1. Re:From the article... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

      As you say, nobody ever found anything useful on whitehouse.gov; but many a curious child found all sorts of information on whitehouse.com. Obviously, Mr. Kohlmann is an al-Qaeda plant, informing the other operatives that the real website is just a TLD away from the one that got shut down.

    2. Re:From the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whitehouse.com seems informative...

    3. Re:From the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's his point? You know, that the sites have no real purpose other than PR.

    4. Re:From the article... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      who get any information from the three sites he called out?

      whitehouse.gov has endless press releases. If you're deep enough into politics that you don't want or need pundits, that's where you find most of your info on what's going on. That's where your senators and representatives are supposed to get much of their information.

      Not specifically sure about pentagon.mil, but plenty of useful info is provided on .mil sites... Mil-spec information can be quite useful. The rainbow books have been available as PDFs there for years. Probably plenty of press releases there as well.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  15. Not offline, just moved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Isn't it obvious? Al Qaeda have simply moved all their secret servers to IPv6.

    (Meant as a joke, but probably not that bad for security through obscurity considering the current IPv6 adoption rates...)

    1. Re:Not offline, just moved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it obvious? Al Qaeda have simply moved all their secret servers to IPv6. (Meant as a joke, but probably not that bad for security through obscurity considering the current IPv6 adoption rates...)

      If they want to use a site for the sake of obscurity they should sign up their members on MoveOn.org.

  16. Athiest, Atypical by maz2331 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "A" is often a short prefix for "anti" or "un". So, athiest (A-Theist) means just an anti-theist, or one who is not a theist. It's the same construction as "atypical" for "not typical" or "asymmetric" for "not symmetric".

    1. Re:Athiest, Atypical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Whoosh! That is to say, my post (a rather feeble joke) referred to the fact that the OP misspelled "atheist" -- consistently, whereas you misspelled it only twice.

      Congratulations on getting "symmetric" right.

    2. Re:Athiest, Atypical by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      So then "therapist" is "the rapist"?

      Who's Craven Moorehead?
      Apparently you are

      --
      What?
    3. Re:Athiest, Atypical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop calling me "Shirley."

    4. Re:Athiest, Atypical by e4g4 · · Score: 1

      Atheist is spelled like that. The GP's point is that the troll has spelled it "athiest," which is just incorrect.

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    5. Re:Athiest, Atypical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see your inner spelling Nazi is still sleeping in.
      Don't feel bad, it was just a troll attempting to make the original troll feel bad about his copy-paste work.

    6. Re:Athiest, Atypical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Anti" is not the same as "not". I am not a theist - thus I am an atheist. But I am not a antitheist in the sense that I do not oppose other people holding the belief.

    7. Re:Athiest, Atypical by glwtta · · Score: 4, Informative

      The privative alpha ('a-') has nothing to do with 'anti', it's a negating prefix that goes all the way back to Proto-Indo-European. It is a cognate of 'un-' and 'in-', though.

      Though apparently this isn't the point of the discussion at hand.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    8. Re:Athiest, Atypical by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      I should add that 'th' in 'theist' should actually be a 'd' sound as in 'deist'. The reason for why we have the-ology and the-ist is due to a Greek confusion between theta and delta and the position of the tongue as you say either sound.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    9. Re:Athiest, Atypical by daniel23 · · Score: 1

      figures that psycho-anal-ytic the-rapists insist you lay yourself down on that couch

      --
      605413? Yes, it's a prime.
    10. Re:Athiest, Atypical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are dead wrong. Absolutely, 100% wrong. In a very important way.

      The prefix "a" means WITHOUT.

      Atheist means without theism, not against theism.

      Asymmetric means WITHOUT symmetry, not AGAINST symmetry.

      Saying that "atheists" are against god is ludicrous. SATANISTS are against god. Atheists don't even think he exists.

    11. Re:Athiest, Atypical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the "A" in "Atheist" mean "Anti", but in the other examples you gave it really means "not"?

      There is such a word "Anti-theist", it does not mean the same thing as "Atheist". Just like the other words you listed, it means "NOT". And until you explicitly choose to become a "theist" you are, in fact, "atheist".

      Meaning most people who choose to label themselves as "agnostic" are also "atheist" whether they like it or not.

    12. Re:Athiest, Atypical by denttford · · Score: 1

      then don't try to be an analyst-therapist in Mexico.
      they don't seem to take to kindly to that.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    13. Re:Athiest, Atypical by tvelocity · · Score: 1

      This is offtopic hardcore, but you're wrong.

      The greek word for god "theos" is written with a theta and pronounced with a theta, not a delta, always has been this way. Thus theist is right, and deism is, well, something else entirely.

      Etymologically, deism isn't related to theos at all, it's root is the latin word deus, see here. Deus in turn stems from the greek Zeus, the king of the gods.

      I'm not sure if such a confusion exists, since any greek word with a delta that I can currently think of, has kept the D in it's latin form, e.g. dermatology, daedalus, delphi, dynamic, et cetera.

    14. Re:Athiest, Atypical by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      I meant the position of the tongue on the roof of the mouth between 'th' and 'd'. I used the Greek as it was (as told to me), an error in transcription many centuries ago.
      I have no link for this, or other source for that matter, so now I'll bow to your refutation.
      I'll keep looking though.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  17. How sad there's no news today by gavron · · Score: 1, Troll
    Wow, it's LIKE an article. It's just missing any news.

    "No one knows" -- Uh, yeah someone knows. The Washington post doesn't know.

    Ergo "The Washington Post" == "No one"

    It also looks like they've hired high school editors. "The sites' disappearance" is incorrect. Sites don't own anything. Proper phrasing: "The disappearance of the sites". Of course that's not correct in Internet parlance. A real Editor would write "The inability to reach the content of the sites..."

    The Washington Post is to a real newspaper like real people who don't give bailouts are to our elected "representatives".

    Ehud

    1. Re:How sad there's no news today by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 1
      Hmmm. I'm thinking that the possessive is perfectly corrrect in this case. The new year doesn't own anything either, but New Year's Eve is on your calendar and mine. The possessive works for things that pertain to, as well as things that are owned by, the subject.

      While we're picking at nits, though, "Editors", or even "real Editors," doesn't require capitalization--only to their staff are they God-like, and perhaps even then only if the editor is Harold Ross. The Post, on the other hand, probably deserves it, even when they don't know things.

      --

      This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

    2. Re:How sad there's no news today by mkiwi · · Score: 1

      I like the idea behind your analysis, however you are incorrect.

      The disappearance (of the sites) = The sites' disappearance.
      In this case disappearance is a noun (more specifically a direct object), therefore it can use the possessive form (with 's) as well.

    3. Re:How sad there's no news today by gavron · · Score: 1
      Thanks :)

      E

    4. Re:How sad there's no news today by novakyu · · Score: 1

      Wow, it's LIKE an article. It's just missing any news. "No one knows" -- Uh, yeah someone knows. The Washington post doesn't know.

      Ergo "The Washington Post" == "No one"

      Er, your criticism may be valid, but your grammar is way off. Consider the following:

      "No one knows X" AND "The Washington Post doesn't know X"

      If you didn't fail grammar school level logic lessons, then it follows "The Washington Post is not 'no one'", since if it were 'no one', it would've known "X".

      I am very tempted to introduce a certain pot to a kettle.

    5. Re:How sad there's no news today by gavron · · Score: 1
      Ok, I'll play, buddy.

      WP: No One Knows X Me: Someone knows X

      The set of "those who know X" is "someone" but that set also excludes WP by their own admission.

      Ergo the WP doesn't know X.

      So if "No One knows X" (wp) and if "WP doesn't know X" (logic, me) then WP= "No One"

      Pedantic, but it's mid evening and the F1 race isn't on, and there's thousands of us looking for things to do until something interesting happens.

      Cheers and best regards,

      E

    6. Re:How sad there's no news today by novakyu · · Score: 1

      So if "No One knows X" (wp) and if "WP doesn't know X" (logic, me) then WP= "No One"

      You need remedial logic classes.

      Granted, in all these discussions of mock logic that you initiated, all the terms are so poorly defined that any idiot can strangle any meaning out of a given string of words. But, even admitting your additional condition of "Someone knows X" (let's ignore for the moment that since this is strictly contradictory to "no one knows X", it makes absolutely no sense, logically, to assume that both sentences are true), what you said does not follow, by "conventional" definition of "someone" and "no one". The only way to make your sentence give any logical sense (again, ignoring the fatal mistakes made earlier on, if that were possible) is by defining "no one" in such a way so that it means "not that someone who knows X" (so that if you take "no one" to mean an entity of no consequence, importance of a being is essentially reduced to a greatly oversimplified condition of knowing X---as if X were the question and answer to life, universe, and everything)---and, at this point, you've defined your way out of the hole that you dug (the same way Bush could declare "mission accomplished"), but any miserable failure can do that always anyway.

      If you don't know formal logic, don't even try using it in discussions---trying to sound smart without actually being makes you look even dumber.

    7. Re:How sad there's no news today by gavron · · Score: 1
      You kids are so funny.

      Let me use smaller words.

      SOMEONE KNOWS. Therefore there is a set of people who know. We'll call them "SOMEONE".

      WP: NOBODY KNOWS. Therefore according to the WP the set of those who know are NOBODY.

      There are several possible and alternative conclusions: 1. The WP is wrong. Since NOBODY isn't SOMEONE they are just plain wrong.

      2. The WP is egocentric, and when they say "Nobody knows" they're saying it's not worth knowing, which is akin to your "entity of no consequence" which means that the WP is the entity of no consequence, or in their own words, NOBODY.

      > If you don't know formal logic, don't even try using it in discussions

      If you have a need to create rules for other people to communicate with you you can go form your own society. This one already has rules, and that one isn't in it.

      E

      P.S. "Dumber" isn't a word. "Dumb" is the inability to speak. It has no superlatives. Cheers and all that,

  18. This one's still up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    http://www.barackobama.com

    1. Re:This one's still up by bonch · · Score: 1

      Even though you're going to get modded down, I have to admit your post, of all the anonymous trolls flooding this article, made me laugh.

    2. Re:This one's still up by Starvingboy · · Score: 1

      Damn, me without mod points. Someone mod this funny already :

    3. Re:This one's still up by skam240 · · Score: 0, Troll

      This one's still up

      http://www.barackobama.com/

      ROTFLOL!!!1!!! Obama and Osama sound similiar so Obama must be a terrorist!! LOLLOL!!!! I've never heard that before!!!

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    4. Re:This one's still up by skam240 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Mod this funny? Really? The Obama being a terrorist because his name sounds like Osama joke wasn't funny the first time I heard it and sure as heck isn't funny now that I've heard it a million times.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  19. Re:fp by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think I speak for all of us when I say: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

    No, you are just speaking for people with really high UIDs.

    That post was a cut-n-paste of a tired, old troll posting with the slight up date of using Obama instead of some random jock twink type.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  20. Re:Hmmm. Could it be ..JESUS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't matter. When a thing like that has been said, it needs a response.

  21. US gov is installing root kits on them as well spy by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    US gov is installing root kits on them spyware also.

  22. Oh my Gawd... by gchesney0001 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Some much for net-neutrality.

    --
    Bite me
  23. uh...Al Gore? by apparently · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    this thread is now about Al Gore

  24. whoever shut these guys down by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    we don't want them shut down

    let them communicate openly. then track the fuckers. now their communication is more hidden, and thus our knowledge of what's going on

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:whoever shut these guys down by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Chances are they have got themselves some proper communications infrastructure. Come to think of it thats a bit of a worry. They might have an operation on the go.

      Posting this from an eeePC by the way. It is very portable, and easy to keep secure. I wonder if openbsd runs on it?

    2. Re:whoever shut these guys down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Al-Qaeda just decided to call it a day?

    3. Re:whoever shut these guys down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they shut themselves down. Let's consider the possibility that all of the vital info they intended to send to their "associates" has been successfully transmitted. Now that that's done, all that's left is to follow the prepackaged instructions in relative silence and obscurity. Makes for a more secure network so long as nobody else has (or recognizes) the playbook. For the sake of perversity, certain actions could be triggered by specific catch phrases, say, perhaps, recitations from the Koran or perhaps _misquoted_ recitations. I'm not an Arabic speaker, or a Muslim, so I couldn't tell you how effective that could be. Obviously, it could be an effective way of dealing with a hostile, yet predictable, organization (like a government). Perhaps a nonpredictable response could muck up the works for a group such as Al Qaeda? If we were to elect a leader that was entirely unanticipated...like...well...

      Cowboy Neal! ....or maybe the Goatse guy.

      Hmm, maybe the cure's worse than the problem.

      Mod this troll? Flamebait? Random Act of Idiocy? :)

    4. Re:whoever shut these guys down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting this from an eeePC by the way. It is very portable, and easy to keep secure. I wonder if openbsd runs on it?

      Yes, it does. Pardon my cowardly post, for I was moderating and felt like informing you that people have installed it on it.
      --nawcom

    5. Re:whoever shut these guys down by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That or the guy who runs them and pays their hosting bills got killed somehow. I mean they do cost money and it isn't like someone can put something on the interweb without a front somewhere. You need an IP, a domain, a connection and so on.

      It could also be that the hacked servers hosting them went down and they were rebuilt from scratch, this time without the terrorist BS.

  25. So what are the URLs? by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    The classic site was Voice of Jihad, but that's been more or less dead for a while. Back in August, it was apparently taken over by some McCain supporter. Now it's a misconfigured shared-IP site on Dreamhost.

    bin Laden's annual video didn't get much press this year. He's released his 2008 video, and it's 87 minutes long, but it's hard to find. Reuters has a summary..

    I suspect that the main reason there's pressure to suppress his videos is that he always has something tellingly negative to say about Bush. This year, bin Laden's sound bite is "And in fact, the subject of the Mujahideen has become an inseparable part of the speech of your leader and the effects and signs are not hidden."

    It's worth remembering that the bin Laden family supported Bush's first presidential campaign. In 1978, Bush and Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem bin Laden, founded Arbusto Energy, an oil company based in Texas. Sometimes one wonders if the plan was to get an incompetent into the US presidency, then apply enough pressure to make him overreact. A pre 9-11 bio of bin Laden, "The Man who Declared War on America", has quotes from him indicating that he felt America needed to be corrupted before it could be taken down, and outlined what needed to be done to make that happen. All the family had to do was to get someone in office who thought tax cuts would fix anything, get him to overspend on the wrong war, and wait for the US economy to collapse.

    We may yet see a "Mission Accomplished" from bin Laden.

    1. Re:So what are the URLs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      it's also worth remembering that the bin Laden family disowned osama years before both 9/11 or bush took office. thanks for the spin on the facts bitch.

      mean, hateful, deceitful. it's the mark of party politics. it's the disease of the era of misinformation.

    2. Re:So what are the URLs? by bonch · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, I suspect the reason his videos aren't reported as much is that whenever Bin Laden shows his face, it energizes Americans and makes them more likely to vote Republican. The media is ridiculously pro-Obama this year and does not want a repeat of 2004 when Bin Laden released a video and threatened Americans a week before the election. We're in a media environment in which the New York Times will run an editorial by Obama but refuse to run one by McCain. Comedians mock Sarah Palin's apparent stupidity while ignoring that Joe Biden said Americans were huddled around television sets to see President Roosevelt. Palin is criticized for her religious views, yet Obama is a Christian who went to the church of reverend Wright for 20 years, and Joe Biden is a Catholic (amazingly, McCain is the least religious candidate).

      So I wouldn't worry about any Bin Laden videos popping up to energize conservative voters this time.

    3. Re:So what are the URLs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I clicked the Voice of Jihad link, I got advertisements for cheap planes to Israel! HMMMM!

    4. Re:So what are the URLs? by rossz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's also worth noting that the bin Laden family disowned Osama many years ago. I'm not an apologist for the middle east. In fact, I don't see much of a downside in turning it into a big glass parking lot. But let's put all the facts out there when discussing things.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    5. Re:So what are the URLs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm a little skeptical of your argument. First, if the Bin Laden video would indeed increase Republican votes then you'd think the McCain campaign (or RNC, or other Republican group) would make some efforts to increase awareness of it 'media' or not (everyone thinks the media is biased towards x or y, even when they are).

      Second, you said that Sarah Palin's stupidity is 'apparent.' Even if you don't believe it, if you're dumb enough to parrot 'we can see russia from here' you deserve what you get.

    6. Re:So what are the URLs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      modded troll for being informative? talk about desperate to bury the facts. what a bunch of cunts.

    7. Re:So what are the URLs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't see much of a downside in turning it into a big glass parking lot.

      Millions dead?

    8. Re:So what are the URLs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying "Bush supported Hitler". Can you prove Bush supported Hitler? Obviously it wouldn't be GW Bush supporting Hitler. If there's no proof that Bush supported Hitler, then this Osama bin Laden supports Bush thing is also up in the air.

      But if you can prove that Bush supported Hitler, then people might start wondering if it runs in the family. They might wonder if the Bush family are actually traitors.

      It's easy to say "conspiracy theory" and ignore it all. But there must be some explanation for all the stupid decisions made by the powerful ones. Why are we getting such poor results from democracy and capitalism? Or are the poor results just coming from the strange governments all over the world, and democracy and capitalism, both being as yet untried and untested, are in fact okay? Or in other words, we don't actually have democracy and capitalism at all. Sure, we say that's what it is, but what if it's really dictatorship and kleptocracy?

      What if all the fancy speeches and big election campaigns are carefully controlled by the people really in charge? What if those people play both teams at once? Like a Punch and Judy show, it's not really the puppets doing anything, it's the people pulling the strings. The puppets might look like they're fighting each other to the death, but they're not really even alive.

      What if all this stock markets, mortgages, finance companies, banks, capitalism, free markets, etc, is just a big shell game? What if the real game is to get people to trust the system, and then to manipulate the system so that the puppet masters end up owning everything? They could, for example, lend lots of people money to buy houses, even if they couldn't afford houses. They could drive up demand and prices for housing by having lots of TV shows about houses, like renovation shows, auction shows, etc. They could drive up prices and demand by changing tax rules to encourage investment in housing. They could give out grants to people buying houses to overheat the market even more. They could sell houses once the price is high enough.

      Then once enough people are over-committed on mortgages, push the interest rates up. Squeeze them until you're getting most of their income just to cover the interest payments. Bundle up all their bad mortgages and sell them all over the world. Who knows where the money from selling the mortgages went to? Will it be tracked down, and removed from the non-criminals who did this? (They're non-criminals because there is no sign of anybody going to jail for this global financial crisis.) Or will those non-criminals get to keep the trillions of dollars they've accumulated through this trickery?

      Then, once the whole filthy balloon pops, pull some strings and get your government puppets to pump taxpayers' money into the banks which just ripped everybody off multiple ways. And since you have your puppets controlling the banks as well, you can't lose either way.

      So the ordinary people have been ripped off multiple ways. Here are some:

      • They have paid too much to buy houses, a basic necessity of life.
      • They have paid too much interest on loans for those houses, being gouged by interest rates fluctuating.
      • Having been squeezed dry by rising interest rates, many people defaulted on their loans and thus lost their houses and who knows what else.
      • The fatcats in business, banking, government, etc have been making out like bandits, being paid millions of dollars a year in salary, and even billions in bonuses, kickbacks, bribes, etc.
      • The people have been lied to and treated like fools in order to get various countries involved in foolish unwinnable wars. When was the last time Afghanistan was defeated? It's the ordinary people on both sides who are suffering the most in this war on terrorism.
      • A large media company said that the war in Iraq would be great, would be over in a few months, and would drop the price of oil to about $20 per barrel. They promoted the war as a good thing. But it drove
    9. Re:So what are the URLs? by r00t · · Score: 1

      and nothing of value was lost

    10. Re:So what are the URLs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You were marked troll for your foul language. Try harder next time bitch.

    11. Re:So what are the URLs? by alphad0g · · Score: 1

      So if I post a conspiracy theory that links Bin Laden to Bush's successful election, i will get a score of informative? Or do i need to do something crazier like talk about how we ourselves blew up the twin towers?

    12. Re:So what are the URLs? by nog_lorp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reference on the family disowning him please? I recall something about suspicions that he was still receiving money from them... but have no references for that either.

    13. Re:So what are the URLs? by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Wow. Your second to last sentence is appalling.

      Saying
      Palin is criticized for her religious views, yet Obama is a Christian who went to the church of reverend Wright for 20 years, and Joe Biden is a Catholic (amazingly, McCain is the least religious candidate).

      Amounts to saying
      and Joe Biden is a Jew!

    14. Re:So what are the URLs? by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      And that there are a cubic buttload of bin-Ladens. Its an enormous family.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    15. Re:So what are the URLs? by gregbot9000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are ignoring the very real fact that news is a money making enterprise. There is absolutely no way for the "media" to run as tight a control as you just described. You see, news is like any product, if the news companies don't follow the popular trends they lose money, heaps of it.

      So someone like you who is holding on to a position that a lot of people are moving away from will think the shift in media attention is directed from the top down, instead of from the bottom up, that the media is changing things instead of reporting on changing opinions.

      You are suffering from what I like to call the "Fringe Media Censorship Bias," which is where people with marginal or fringe beliefs often attribute their beliefs lack of representation in the "media" to some sort of censorship, rather then a lack of interest from the rest of society. Some, like Noam Chomsky, suffer from this condition to the extent where they write whole books trying to rationalize that it's the "media" ignoring them and not just society in general.

      Osama probably didn't get the air time because he's old hat. Your example is from what? 4 years ago? Christ thats a generation in media years. And Palin is dumb, and that's a story that sells.

    16. Re:So what are the URLs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see, so you're just a completely amoral f*ck then?

    17. Re:So what are the URLs? by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Awesome dude. I love how you threw out that "let's be reasonable and consider all the facts" bullshit just to dupe people into reading how much you'd like to nuke the middle east. Hook, line, sinker - nice job!

    18. Re:So what are the URLs? by nawcom · · Score: 0, Troll

      So if I post a conspiracy theory that links Bin Laden to Bush's successful election, i will get a score of informative? Or do i need to do something crazier like talk about how we ourselves blew up the twin towers?

      I know. along with that are the people who are crazy enough to think that the anthrax attacks came from our own government lab!

    19. Re:So what are the URLs? by mqduck · · Score: 1

      I find it rather terrifying that enough people who happened to have mod points decided to bring this up to +5 Insightful. I'm sorry, this bullshit is unacceptable (though he's right about the bin Laden family).

      --
      Property is theft.
    20. Re:So what are the URLs? by Moodie-1 · · Score: 1

      What election???

    21. Re:So what are the URLs? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually if Biden was a Jew, that would be a plus to many Americans. We have only elected one Catholic as President in the history of the US and that was Kennedy.

      It has something to do with being obligated to the vatican and the pope and so one. But more recently, it is competition for Michal Jackson's line, what warm and brown and in a little boys pants, a catholic priests hand.

    22. Re:So what are the URLs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama Biden
      O*ama Biden
      O*ama Bi* **den
      Osama Bin Laden

      Enough said.

    23. Re:So what are the URLs? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I suspect that the main reason there's pressure to suppress his videos is that he always has something tellingly negative to say about Bush. This year, bin Laden's sound bite is "And in fact, the subject of the Mujahideen has become an inseparable part of the speech of your leader and the effects and signs are not hidden."

      It boggles me how messed up some people are. You have determined in the absence of any evidence (aside from a pathetic soundbite) that these videos are being suppressed because they somehow embarass Bush. Not because these videos are ways to communicate to Al Qaeda cells. And the press is complicit in this because what? People really want to listen to an 87 minute rant from one of the more reprehensible men on the planet? I'm sure it makes sense to you.

      It's worth remembering that the bin Laden family supported Bush's first presidential campaign. In 1978, Bush and Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem bin Laden, founded Arbusto Energy, an oil company based in Texas. Sometimes one wonders if the plan was to get an incompetent into the US presidency, then apply enough pressure to make him overreact. A pre 9-11 bio of bin Laden, "The Man who Declared War on America", has quotes from him indicating that he felt America needed to be corrupted before it could be taken down, and outlined what needed to be done to make that happen. All the family had to do was to get someone in office who thought tax cuts would fix anything, get him to overspend on the wrong war, and wait for the US economy to collapse.

      I'm sure you wonder all sorts of crazy stuff. But if the bin Ladens were that canny, then they'd be able to do a lot more than just knock off the current superpowers.

    24. Re:So what are the URLs? by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      I'm aware Kennedy has been the only Catholic president, but there have been NO presidents of a faith other than Christianity.

      As far as being "controlled by the pope", AFAIK and can find by searching online, Kennedy never visited the pope during his presidency, as George W. Bush has.

      But that wasn't really my point, my point was that OPs statement was blatantly bigoted and akin to racism.

    25. Re:So what are the URLs? by dotancohen · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You are suffering from what I like to call the "Fringe Media Censorship Bias," which is where people with marginal or fringe beliefs often attribute their beliefs lack of representation in the "media" to some sort of censorship, rather then a lack of interest from the rest of society. Some, like Noam Chomsky, suffer from this condition to the extent where they write whole books trying to rationalize that it's the "media" ignoring them and not just society in general.

      I'm going to get charred for posting this on /., but this is the reason that hardware manufacturers don't supply Linux drivers. They don't hate Linux, there is simply no real interest in it.

      (Posting from Ubuntu, MS free for over three years. Yet still a realist.)

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    26. Re:So what are the URLs? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

      Actually, I suspect the reason his videos aren't reported as much is that whenever Bin Laden shows his face, it energizes Americans and makes them more likely to vote Republican. The media is ridiculously pro-Obama this year and does not want a repeat of 2004 when Bin Laden released a video and threatened Americans a week before the election.

      always tickled when people speak as if the media is actually a cohesive entity that can do anything in a unified way. It makes it sound somehow more sinister and exciting to describe the media this way.

      Another take is that Bin Laden is boring at this point, and short of a capture story, nobody will buy a paper with yet another predictable and dull bin laden rant. Remember the media has to sell its product like any other company.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    27. Re:So what are the URLs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you just hate it when that happens?
      It is such a bitch.

    28. Re:So what are the URLs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People really want to listen to an 87 minute rant from one of the more reprehensible men on the planet?

      How do you know he's reprehensible? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Has Osama bin Laden been charged with any crimes? Has he been brought to trial? Has he been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

      Or does Osama bin Laden not get the presumption of innocence because the government says he's a terrorist? Shouldn't Osama bin Laden be considered innocent up until he's convicted, just like any murderer or thief?

    29. Re:So what are the URLs? by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      So why do so many hardware manufacturers supply Linux drivers, then?

      Just looking at the Linux box I'm posting this from. Graphics? Intel, open-source Linux drivers. Okay, but everyone has Linux graphics drivers, even if mostly they're closed source... what about wi-fi? Surely I'm at least being forced to use ndiswrapper? Nope, the manufacturer provides regularly-updated open-source Linux drivers.

      About the only bit of hardware I have that doesn't have some kind of Linux driver is my printer, and, far from hurting Linux, all that does is provide an ISV opportunity: TurboPrint works a treat.

      Maybe if you'd said "nobody does BSD drivers", you'd have had a point... ;)

    30. Re:So what are the URLs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would you have just watched one video of chomsky appearing on public media, you'd realize that its quite obvious the media doesn't want to talk about certain things. whatever the reason (financial, political, conspiracy..) doesn't really matter, it's quite impolite to shift away from a serious debate into nonsense questions and quotes by his interviewers... (oh and the captcha on this thing was Patriots hehe)

    31. Re:So what are the URLs? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Maybe if you'd said "nobody does BSD drivers", you'd have had a point... ;)

      I didn't say that because nobody uses BSD :)

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    32. Re:So what are the URLs? by xero314 · · Score: 1

      Comedians mock Sarah Palin's apparent stupidity while ignoring that Joe Biden said Americans were huddled around television sets to see President Roosevelt.

      I'm not going to defend Biden, or any politician for that matter, but you should know that the Biden Roosevelt comment has be covered extensively and that what Biden said is quite likely true. NY, where Roosevelt was then Governor had an actively broadcasting television station since 1927, over a year before the stock market crash in question. Biden never said "current president Roosevelt" and only mentioned that Roosevelt made a speech and that some people would have seen him make his speech on TV.

      Now it's true that Biden was probably just mistaken and made a slip up as he was born when the event took place and has probably only read about Roosevelt's speeches, but that the fact still stands that he was probably right, and it's a minor mistake that his proponents like to hold on too. Mistakenly saying TV instead of Radio is nothing compared to the stupidity level that Palin has reached (just google "stupid Palin"). Biden doesn't think that New Hampshire is in the Northwest, or that Afghanistan neighbors the United States

      True Palin has yet to reach Bush levels of stupid, but it won't be long, if the idiots of this country elect her as vice president.

    33. Re:So what are the URLs? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of truth to what you say, but there's another angle to consider. When you have several sellers selling a very similar product, the tendency is for them all to sell roughly the same thing. When you go to a supermarket, you can guarantee that you will find 400g packs of thinly sliced ham. Why? There's no good reason for ham to come in 400g packs - only everyone else does it. The media is very similar. Some journalist will look at the Osama video and go, well, CNN hasn't run with it, NBC hasn't run with it, Fox hasn't run with it, it's obviously not important. Boom, instant burial.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    34. Re:So what are the URLs? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Visiting the Pope isn't really the same as being beholden to him. It would be akin to suggesting that evangelicals were somehow beholden to England and because of a visit to England or our continued support for them, as if it proved the connection. Many people (Mainly Roman catholics) from all around the world follow what the Pope and the church says without ever visiting him or the Vatican. Something else that is interesting is that the Vatican is actually a country and the pope is actually the leader of that country.

      I know that wasn't your intent, or perhaps I took your statement too far. It's just that I don't think you understand how the Roman Catholics themselves see their religion and obligations to the Pope. Kennedy had to specifically proclaim that he wouldn't be beholden to Rome or the Vatican/pope. His election was close and some claim that there was wide spread fraud in Illinois, Ohio, and Texas that gave him the election. I'm not sure how true those claims are, history has done a good job of covering it up but then again, the victor writes the history.

      As for the OP being bigoted, your probably right. I don't personally see religion as a motivating factor for the election of public officials. If there is something inherent with a person's religious convictions that would hamper their ability to do the job, it would have surfaced before they even got the job and probably hurt them more then any future act they might attempt to do. But currently, there is a lot of support for the Jews and Israel and it is probably better to be a Jew then to be a roman catholic considering the inherent obligations that people attempt to put on them. It is as if a Jew would have to defend or support Israel creating a sense of beholding with them too. Of course that is already accepted by Christians and general foreign policy as it is so it isn't out of the main stream of thought already.

      as for talking about the reverend Wright and someone who has had connections with him, that goes along the lines of what has happened in the past. The reverend Wright isn't exactly mainstream and borders an occultism style of religion that preached hate alongside any other message. I believe it is fair game to ask him, it isn't like attending automatically means anyone supports the views, I know plenty of people who have gone to church for 20 years and still don't get the message being sent. It isn't uncommon for someone to be completely oblivious of the message but it isn't out of the question to ask if they do. Anyways, if Religion did matter to anyone, his point was correct in that McCain is probably the least religious of the bunch which might be a reason he brought Palin on board.

    35. Re:So what are the URLs? by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      True, and thats probably the biggest fault with the "media" today. And car companies. I like how your example of how a story gets buried was a journalist at the bottom, rather then a direction from a Boss at top. It really shows how this is a feedback problem and not a control problem, which makes it a lot harder to fix.

      The same thing almost happened to Watergate, as reporters questioned their stories due to a lack of public interest and media attention.

      I think the best way to solve the problem of the big companies acting as trend setters and parrots of each other in an echo chamber is to have more small companies.

      I'd like to think people are active enough consumers of media that it will be a self correcting problem, that they will search out new products when the old fail them, and it seems to be to an extent.

      I also believe that much of the loss of circulation in recent years is due more to people leaving after the corporatizing of newspapers to regurgitate processed junk, and the destruction of local reporting, then it is to the internet taking them away. Though many probably leave to the internet.

      This seems evidenced by the fact that local weeklies, who put much more focus on local affairs and local opinion, are making large inroads into newspaper sales, and often buck the big media trends. Much like how a lot of smaller grocery stores have been popping up to buck the processed 400g junk the big boxes have been putting out.

    36. Re:So what are the URLs? by khallow · · Score: 1

      How do you know he's reprehensible? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Has Osama bin Laden been charged with any crimes? Has he been brought to trial? Has he been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

      There's plenty of evidence indicating his complicity in the September 11 attacks and numerous other attacks. He openly admited his organization pulled it off.

      Or does Osama bin Laden not get the presumption of innocence because the government says he's a terrorist? Shouldn't Osama bin Laden be considered innocent up until he's convicted, just like any murderer or thief?

      At the international level, there's no justice system that can reach bin Laden. No, he shouldn't be treated like any other murderer or thief because unless someone gets lucky and captures him, he won't be brought before a trial. That's assuming he's still alive even.

    37. Re:So what are the URLs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, uh, Biden probably didn't know that. To quote Biden:

      I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? Why is it that my wife who is sitting out there in the audience is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I'm the first Biden in a thousand generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest?

      The best part about that quote? None of it is true!

      Because it's from a speech by Neil Kinnock, describing his life, which just so happens to not be Biden's.

      When Obama picked Biden I thought that he was handing the election to McCain, since it would be impossible to pick a worse VP. I'm not entirely convinced I was completely wrong, though, I think Palin may in fact managed to be solely as bad, and therefore not technically worse.

    38. Re:So what are the URLs? by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

      Uh, one such attack *did* come from a government lag. Person was about to be indicted, committed suicide. Anything else you would care to add?

  26. compromised channels? by perlchild · · Score: 1

    Sheesh, I mean if the journalists know about them, I know I'd try to use something else...

    Let alone waiting for the journalists to write public articles about it...

  27. Restored by election time? by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If these sites are down, how will Al-Qaeda make its pre-election rant against the Republican candidate like they did four years ago? If they once again want the Republicans to win (more likely in their view to create the clash of civilizations that they're dreaming of) how will they pull that off this time?

    We know that Hamas has endorsed Obama. Maybe bin Laden will do the same just to make sure that McCain is elected and the US can more easily be painted as the Great Satan.

    --
    Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
    1. Re:Restored by election time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe Hamas is supporting Obama because McCain has been quite outspoken about his intent to support Israel

    2. Re:Restored by election time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hamas has presumably endorsed Barrack Obama due to the fact that he belonged to a church for 20 years that supports Palestine over Israel. Despite Obama's claims that he'll support Israel, you have to think that years of indoctrination to the contrary could have an effect on him.

      But don't take my word for it, check the Anti-Defamation League's story. Note that this isn't something that can just be tied to Reverend "God damns America" Wright, this is the dogma of his denomination of Christianity itself. Obama may be able to distance himself from Wright, it's a bit harder to say "those core beliefs of the church I was a member of for 20 years aren't mine."

      But that'd be my guess why Hamas would support Obama - his religion's leadership explicitly supports Hamas.

  28. al qaeda doesn't call it a day by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    you don't understand what motivates them

    religious bigotry is bottomless pit of slime which constantly renews

    all you need is arrogance and a feeling of superiority

    and then "god" gives you the right to kill subhumans

    subhumans are anyone who doesn't believe as you do

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:al qaeda doesn't call it a day by germansausage · · Score: 1

      "arrogance and a feeling of superiority"

      I would think envy and a feeling of inferiority would do just as well.

    2. Re:al qaeda doesn't call it a day by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      While I don't argue with your analysis, it -is- notable that, despite the US president being possible the most antagonistic target that Bin Laden and co could hope for, the rate of terrorist acts and (as far as we can tell) discovered but interrupted plots has declined significantly around the world. One has to wonder what that means. It may mean that the supply of cannon fodder is running low.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    3. Re:al qaeda doesn't call it a day by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      just tell em the aliens will come here and kill all who believe.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  29. hmmm by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Perhaps Anonymous did something good and remains anonymous instead of taking credit for things like they normally would.

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:hmmm by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      Not likely. Terrorists don't strike me as being good lolcows.

    2. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding?
      All fundies make excellent lolcows, be they christian, muslim or even atheist (yes, they exist, and travel in groups)

  30. I think the responsible is by ghostbar38 · · Score: 0

    The same responsible for getting it up... They're constantly moving their networks...

    --
    ghostbar page.
  31. Re:Hmmm. Could it be ..JESUS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just think that is really scary how Palin followers usually DON'T know how to write in proper English. It is ATHEIST and not ATHIEST. Try to get an English evening class, Joe the Plumber...

  32. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's scary is that you actually read through the old troll posting and this troll posting to notice the difference -- I always stop somewhere around "A couple weeks ago, while browsing around the library downtown" now (the first time I did read to "I had to take a piss" before it was obviously a troll).

  33. Re:Hmmm. Could it be ..JESUS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We see the world not as IT is, but as WE are...

  34. September 10th...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A very small fraction of you will know that something else happened on september 10th involving the fall of a forum of a very different kind, quite unrelated to terrorism....yet, with hindsight, it's almost too close to be a coincidence. It too, went curiously unreported by official sources, despite being what most would consider a major victory.

    Do law enforcement agencies have a habit of launching all cybercrime-related raids on a single day?

  35. VPN or GPG or Hamachi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just look for the hamachi or openvpn dark network instead. They probably just setup link inside the old web site with connectivity information.

    Or they've setup a torrent tracking site with images of mosques and have embedded the message text inside them.

    Or they just use GPG email.

  36. they killed F'ckedcompany.com forums again? by shareme · · Score: 0

    They killed F'ckedcompany.com forums again?

    --
    Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
  37. Re:fp by repvik · · Score: 1

    I don't consider my UID to be "really high". I still go Whiskey Tango Foxtrot when I see those trolls, even though I recognize them.

  38. You know what this means, don't you? by RepelHistory · · Score: 2, Funny

    It means we're winning.

  39. May Be by justkeeper · · Score: 1

    It's slashdotted?

  40. I know by Synthaxx · · Score: 1

    Allah did it.

    Though to be fair, god, the easter bunny and Batman helped.

    1. Re:I know by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Allah and God are the same entity. But batman and the Easter bunny are separate. But your comment was along the lines of Bob Dole did it along with the help of Bob Dole and some other people.

  41. Must be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the legion of Anon!

  42. Oh no! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Damn! I'll just have to try an contain my disappointment!

  43. No worries by Nyckname · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Remember, "bin Laden wants Obama to win". He wouldn't sanction something that will cause McCain to win.

  44. Whoops by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Amahad just HAD to implement IPv6, didn't he?

  45. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude. it says "Barack Obama" on the FIRST LINE.
    Clearly it didn't used to say that.

  46. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may not have a predisposition to elitism

  47. About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I see large domains as yahoo brought down by a worm (few yrs ago) and when I see the /. effect, I do not understand why such websites are allowed to function. I have also heard of al-Qa'idah advocates (calls herself a media activist) from EU; those should be detained. Here in the middle east nothing has changed as far as fundamentalism and funding religious organizations, activities, and schools (similar to those in Pakistan). It is a long battle and they are probably getting more funding from the extra Oil revenues.

  48. Bin Laden was too busy to pay the domain renewal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what happens.

    Remember the guy that paid for Microsoft's domain renewal many year back?

    har-de-har-har

  49. which is more useful ? by DJLuc1d · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Marginally disrupting enemy communications ? Or eavesdropping on said communications. If this was the US military, it only means that they have devised another way to eavesdrop. Perhaps they have figured out that they will now use SMS and have devised a way to geographically locate such SMS transmissions. Pure conjecture of course.

  50. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    maybe Obama was the jock twink.

  51. Re:Hmmm. Could it be ..JESUS? by BungaDunga · · Score: 1

    Don't feed the trolls. It was safely moderated into oblivion, so hardly anyone bothered to read it anyway.

  52. Re:Hmmm. Could it be ..JESUS? by PPH · · Score: 1

    How could my gardener shut down al Qaida's web sites?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  53. Hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they hate the west so much then why do they use the internet.

    1. Re:Hypocrites by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      If Native Americans hated westerners so much, why did they use guns to fight!? Oh wait, that makes no sense.

  54. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People would be more likely to take you seriously if you posted under your real screen name instead of Anonymous Coward.

  55. 3 letters j - o - b - s by SL+Baur · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Huh? Is that some kind of joke whose punchline went over my head?

    Joe Biden is perhaps the dumbest candidate we've ever had for VP.

    "Stand up, Chuck so every one can see you ... oh wait"

    We're talking about the same Dan Quayle right? The one who is the sole reason that George W. Bush isn't the dumbest politician America has ever seen?

    Biden is dumber.

    1. Re:3 letters j - o - b - s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait? Using direct quotes to make a point?

      Seriously guys, put down the Obama koolaid, step away from the keyboard and start thinking, at least for a moment.

  56. Re:Hmmm. Could it be ..JESUS? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    If that's the way y'all deal with 'em then y'all are doing it wrong. Burning a Christian alive stinks up the whole neighborhood for a week! The best way is to feed 'em feet first through an industrial chipper/shredder because then you get free mulch!

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  57. Re:Hmmm. Could it be ..JESUS? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

    Don't forget pagans, too! We're even more evil than the atheists.

  58. The real reason they went down... by idiotdevel · · Score: 0

    They were running Vista

  59. Re:fp by mqduck · · Score: 1

    Ha. That's one of the funniest things I've heard all day. (no sarcasm)

    --
    Property is theft.
  60. Re:fp by mqduck · · Score: 1

    Yeah, does anyone know the actual origin of that story? It sounds to me like something that was originally written seriously - that it really was the author's fantasy.

    --
    Property is theft.
  61. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's just cuntpaste.

  62. Sites by mqduck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anybody know where to *find* these sites? Even Wikipedia won't supply links.

    --
    Property is theft.
    1. Re:Sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anybody know where to *find* these sites? Even Wikipedia won't supply links.

      No, they're hiding.

  63. Re:fp by eosp · · Score: 1

    96666? that's awesome luck, dude.

  64. Re:Stupid to shut them down. Censorship = wrong by Lordnerdzrool · · Score: 1

    Underground communications between people who don't even know each other is harder than you would think. And when they do, that means there is more likely to be physical trails between point A and B, allowing you to follow your way to the anthill. So either they can't communicate, or they leave a better trail. This is win-win.

  65. Al-Qaeda offline because... by billcopc · · Score: 1

    The Bush administration forgot to renew their domain names... tee-hee!

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  66. No Links? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm getting sick and tired of the sites in question not being linked to. It is absolutely ridiculous to take someone's word and assume the sites have been taken off line. I'm not saying that they haven't, however, we have NO way to even attempt to review the status of the sites. I don't even understand the counter argument, site promotion? I'm sorry, but the fact that you're reporting on and classifying sites as "terrorist" sites should not be taken lightly.

    How many more of these sites will be censored from us in the future in order to 'protect' the public while we just sit back and take the word of a reporter or the government that we're now safer? I'm not buying it.

    1. Re:No Links? by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you didn't RTFA carefully enough. It says it's talking about private, password-protected sites. So even if they did provide links, all you could "verify" is either that they have indeed linked to a site that doesn't exist (and how would you be able to tell whether it really had been an al-Qaeda site before?), or to some kind of login page (and, without a password, how would you be able to tell whether it was really an al-Qaeda site or just a random anonymous login page?)

      This is nothing to do with censorship. It's the owners and users of those sites themselves who have always been taking measures to prevent the public from finding them or reading their contents. Even if someone really has hacked these sites and taken them offline, that is not affecting what the public can see in the slightest.

      This isn't Wikipedia. In the real world, some things really are unverifiable. Journalists really do have secret sources, and they really do sometimes report on things the public can't verify. It's your choice to decide whether you believe them or not, but it certainly isn't "ridiculous" to decide that, on balance, you think an unverifiable story is still credible.

  67. Re:fp by lostguru · · Score: 1

    I never get that far into the first line

    --
    Jayne: "These are stone killers, little man. They ain't cuddly like me."
    98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smok
  68. i guess you don't live in a muslim country by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    the #1 victim of murderous islamic fundamentalists is, always was, and always will be, other muslims

    other muslims who don't tow the ultrastrict line. a moderate muslim is worse than an infidel, as they should know better. and so they are job number one for murder. this is why the middle east can't modernize, can't moderate its thought. anyone who tries to do so, its instant open season for assassination

    the west only seems to notice or care when these fundamentalist muslim assholes victimize the west. so the truth is, there really has been no drop in their avarice as you suggest. their avarice has simply been confined to their usual nurdering grounds: their own neighborhood

    however, there is something the west should take note of: the usa is about to elect a president who is the son of an apostate. obama's father had once been a muslim. amongst the zealots, there is no greater evil than to renounce your muslim faith. worse than an infidel: an apostate. you, or your father, doesn't matter. your entire family must be murdered

    certain dimwitted americans believe obama is a sort of muslim mole, like a really bad movie script. however, the truth is more twisted: muslim fundamentalists would much rather have a "crusader" as a president of the usa than an apostate. a "crusader" is an old familiar enemy, they are ready and familiar with that. but an apostate stokes their rage like no other can. they can never understand why anyone would want to abandon their creed... even though, of course, al qaeda doesn't actually represent its creed, islam. just like people who bomb abortion clinics do not represent christianity, no matter what these fundamentalist muslim and christian asshole wackjobs believe, in truth, they are pretty much the definition of evil on this planet

    that islam is not represented by al qaeda is the greatest tragedy of all: to lots of people in the west, the insane ramblings and actions of al qaeda is the face of islam. its not. but its not actually the fault of the west that this is all they see of islam. the whole point of terrorism is to buy front page headlines. its very effective in this way. so moderate muslims really do need to be more vocal, to do more to defeat the fungal growth in their midst. and until moderate muslims fight al qaeda more effectively, they will only see more death and destruction... not at the hands of the west, but at the hands of those responsible for the most muslim deaths in this world: al qaeda

    even with 10 more neocon american administrations invading 10 more muslim countries, al qaeda would still claim the lions share of dead muslims in this world. this doesn't jive with their recruting propaganda, but its true. a deranged young muslim, angry at the actions of the west and recruited by al qaeda, will most likely have his or her first (and last) suicide bombing job to be: murder fellow muslims. sad and true. all in the name of keeping the moderate muslim cowed and fearful and weak and in line

    people really need to understand the nature of this cancer and how difficult it is to extinguish. and if not al qaeda, we will be hearing about death and destruction from religious zealots for a long time to come

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i guess you don't live in a muslim country by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 1
      No troll intended, just curious.

      What is it that makes Islam and fundamental extremists such a potent combination?

    2. Re:i guess you don't live in a muslim country by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      the west only seems to notice or care when these fundamentalist muslim assholes victimize the west

      Well, what else should we care about? One of the chief objections against the US keeps poking our nose where it shouldn't be. If muslims wish to kill muslims in Iraq or wherever, I'm not sure that's our business. Sure it's heinous, but I don't hink its my or our job to police the rest of the world. We have plenty of problems of our own that are frankly more important to me.

      My point was that the attacks against US citizens seem to have abated, and I'm OK with that. It further implies that maybe we don't need to treat our own citizens as if they are at war with us.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    3. Re:i guess you don't live in a muslim country by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

      You know, you are extremely correct on a number of points. In particular, the comment about the west and the front page of headlines. That's one of the reasons I stopped watching TV eight years ago. Chaos and destruction sells, or so news outlets believe. Sure, there are problems in the world, there are a lot of good things also. My general rule follows what my best friend (who died of breast cancer about 10 years ago) told me about news "If something important or significant happens, someone will tell you". You have similar things, related to moderate muslims, about "gun-toting, bible thumbing" Americans. I am not a Christian, but I know many, I was raised as one until I decided to start studying the great religions of the world. That stereo type is also just that, stereo type. Goes for any group really as far as what "news" is reporting about them.

  69. ooops by PacketScan · · Score: 1

    rm -f /

  70. Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Informative? C'mon. Now, you ARE correct that the last video was intended to influence the election (even the government said that), but the rest isn't right.

    Forgetting exactly when TV was invented isn't quite the same as saying "all of them" (with no examples) when asked what magazines you read, or saying that you'll "get back to them" for some examples on a policy issue. Or all that other stuff. They're feeding on her because she only reads from teleprompters these days and after those interview disasters has finally ONCE taken a few questions from reporters.

    And Palin is criticized for her pro-life views, which McCain has endorsed as well. This is perhaps the only thing I agree with them on at this point. Obama is a bit wishy-washy about the subject, but has generally been pro-choice. And he was harshly criticized over Wright at the time, but people have moved on like they always do.

    Anyhow, if the video comes out, I doubt they can very well ignore it. One analysis said that the reason Obama was trying to make a "roadblock" for a half hour on national TV about 4 days before the election was to preempt any last surprises like that.

  71. Yahoo employee by jawahar · · Score: 1

    Recently a Yahoo employee in India arrested for abetting terrorist activities.

  72. bullcrap by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 1

    A- means lack of. Anti- means opposition. An antitheist would believe in an antigod, or be against theism. An atheist just thinks there is no god.

  73. Anonymous forums by skeeto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Freenet has distributed (by its nature), anonymous, uncensorable forum software. I wonder if they will go/have gone that route.

  74. I went past 1st line because of Pastor Deacon Fred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's as though he was here beside me, reading it. *cries*

    But I tell you, wicked sinner, that Pastor Manning has eclipsed Pastor Deacon Fred of Satan; Pastor Manning is a one of those Christian radicals that not even Fred could overcome. It makes me sick thinking about how sincere people think Pastor Manning behaves, when he's only a whiny tard with an offering bag, with and a message about Obama's "White Trash Mother" and "pathetic Drunk" of a Father

    OBAMMA 2009!

  75. Re:fp by Kane+Devaid · · Score: 1

    If that gets modded funny, it will no longer be ironic, and will cease to be funny. How ironic.

  76. Just in case by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    obviously you're going to hide your messages somewhere already illegal rather than in wedding photos or LOLcats.

    I propose precautory detention for distributors of wedding photos and LOLcats.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  77. Re:fp by Kane+Devaid · · Score: 1

    There are hundreds like this on sex story websites like http://www.asstr.org/. I believe most of them are genuine fantasies (not mine). The authors post for free because they want everyone to tell them what great hidden artists they are.

  78. who can actually confirm? by nx6310 · · Score: 1

    I was skimming through all these comments in hope of coming across one of a regular in those alleged forums, but sadly no one finds those sites interesting enough to check out, or we're just plain too scared to.

    All I could confirm was the http://www.alarabiya.net/ going offline with a number of other 'non-terrorist' sites on Friday, 10th of this month.

  79. Yes, but no by bipbop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your point is solid, because what's relevant is whether that's been true recently--let's say, the last hundred years. It is, however, factually false. The religious views of all the founding fathers and early presidents are not all known, and they are certainly not all the same, but the common theme is Deism. (There are good articles on the subject but I'm reluctant to link one without checking it; you can easily search for "founding fathers" "deism" and evaluate the claims for yourself, if you wish.)

    1. Re:Yes, but no by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      I am familiar with the founding fathers' Deist beliefs - I've heard it discussed often and never heard of it being a contentious point (WP article seems to state it as fact, not sure what it referenced on the point though). However I would be hesitant to call Deism a faith so much as a philosophy: it does not directly clash with Christian belief. All of the founding fathers certainly claimed to be of Christian faith, though whether this was purely for public consumption or reflected a blend of Deist philosophy and Christian faith would be an interesting discussion.

  80. "Bear with me" by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    if you ever have the need to say or write "Bear with me", you are far better off not writing nor saying anything at that moment in time

    "Bear with me" is code words for "pure unadulterated horseshit"

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  81. slashdot by pheldens · · Score: 0

    Shoeshine boys of the military industrial complex.

  82. Ghoroub XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A group called Ghoroub XP, based in the United Arab Emirates, asserted responsibility. Its claim has not been publicly confirmed by any authorities."

    Even they have the sense not to downgrade to Ghoroub Vista!

  83. They'll be back soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are just on the telephone to Yahoo! customer service, trying to get their data back.

  84. att.com? by Cousin+Scuzzy · · Score: 1

    Those sites are where al-Qaeda pays their phone bills?

  85. Re:Hmmm. Could it be ..JESUS? by jack2000 · · Score: 0

    Armenians called, they want their robes back! http://directionstoorthodoxy.org/share/mod_gallery/1743.jpg

  86. Re:fp by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

    If a post has been marked by sufficient number of mods as troll, it should be deleted.

    At least it should be skipped by keyboard navigation.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  87. Washington did not claim to be a Christian by bipbop · · Score: 3, Insightful
    George Washington did not claim to be of Christian faith. Note that he did not claim otherwise, either, but it was slightly controversial at the time, and certainly not implied by his silence. I'd like to offer the following quotes from this site. (I have not checked their quotes against the primary sources.)

    In concluding the interview, Dr. Wilson said "I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges him self as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more" (Remsberg, pp. 121-122, emphasis added).

    In February 1800, after Washington's death, Thomas Jefferson wrote this statement in his personal journal

    Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice....

    I know that Gouverneur Morris [principal drafter of the constitution], who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed him self to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did" (quoted in Remsberg, p. 123 from Jefferson's Works, Vol. 4, p. 572, emphasis added).

  88. Like any religion by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    the supposed adherents rarely live up to the ideals. The 9/11 bombers who supposedly were islamic through and through were known to visit strip clubs and the like.

    Considering that some web traffic analysis shows large pornographic viewing in the middle east I wonder if it is our perception of what they consider wrong. Then again they might not think twice about female nudity.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  89. HELLO, HELLO, IS ANYBODY OUT THERE by u38cg · · Score: 0, Troll

    Who the FUCK moderated this shit insightful? Three times? Jesus fucking christ, people. You probably watch your television in black and white, too.

    --
    [FUCK BETA]
  90. Re:fp by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

    Are you seriously bragging about recognizing poo-eating stories?

  91. Support for Obama??? by m509272 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Osama wants Obama in office and becoming silent would make sure no fuel is added to the McCain campaign????

  92. While hiding messages in photos is hard to find by zukinux · · Score: 1

    5 MB Ghotse is just like saying I've hidden here something, please CIA, do not investigate this photo. (sorry, it was funnier in my head).

  93. Maybe a disgruntled former employee? by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

    Instead of stealing his company's data or damaging a server, he put his professional training to use and suicide bombed their colo.

    --
    "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
  94. End of term? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not a US citizen, but I had assumed it had something to do with Bush stepping down...

    Perhaps the servers were being hosted by the Bush Administration?

  95. Re:fp by laa · · Score: 1

    96666? that's awesome luck, dude.

    Have you noticed how all UID:s between 95678 and 96665 are totally unsed?

    --
    Why does the kernel go through stable and then unstable forks? Can't it always be a stable build, like with Windows?
  96. America Doesn't Have a 'Home Office' by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

    But extra points for trying to work in an anti-American jab.

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    1. Re:America Doesn't Have a 'Home Office' by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

      But extra points for trying to work in an anti-American jab.

      I'm American so it's allowed.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
  97. you have to care by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    if you have a human conscience

    people make it there concern, because they care about the state of their world. this is the noble path, and the only one with any moral or intellectual integrity

    sure, there's plenty of tribal people in the world, such as yourself, only concerned with your little fiefdom. well then, be honest with your pov and simply stop commenting on that which you have chosen not to concern yourself with. but you will not convince other people to stop caring

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you have to care by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Let's see, there's a straw man, a red herring, and an ad hominum. That's pretty good, but I'd prefer to actually debate the points being discussed.

      Have fun trolling, hope you get a bigger fish next time.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
  98. the islamic world is lagging behind the west by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    the west went through world war i and world war ii and saw what blind egotism and bigotry creates. its nothing about islam. the insanity of fundamentalist islam is pretty much the same xenophobia and ethnocentric fascism as nazism in 1930s germany. fundamentalst islam rather than nationalistic racism simply serves as the template that these maggots to congeal around this time. its really the same, the same xenophobia and feeling of superiority, based on arbitrary things like tribe, or race, or nation, or religious creed

    unfortunately, i think the islamic world needs to shed some blood before it is humbled by the rotten fruits of its own fury. unfortunate but true. the passions hard at work in the middle east right now will not fade away of their own accord. what will happen is some sort of hitler will rise in the middle east, consolidate all that has inspired him, and wage holy war against all neighbors. after much death, and defeat, what rises from the ashes will have learned what bigotry reaps. too many in the islamic world right now do not realize what religious bigotry really reaps: your own downfall. the same downfall arrogance, egotism, racism, ultranationalism, tribalism reaps

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  99. --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it