Anti-US Hacker Takes Credit For Worm

angry tapir writes "Credit for the "Here You Have" worm (recently discussed on Slashdot), has been taken by a hacker known as 'Iraq Resistance' who says the worm was designed, in part, as a propaganda tool. He said he had not expected the worm to spread as broadly as it had, and noted that he could have done much more damage to victims. 'I could smash all those infected but I wouldn't,' said the hacker. 'I hope all people understand that I am not negative person!' In other parts of the message, he was critical of the US war in Iraq. For a brief period early the worm accounted for about 10 percent of the spam on the Internet."

Comments

Luddite victims.

[jonescb]

I can understand his message, but unfortunately this sort of things always backfires. I'm not sure how he thinks a virus is going to convince the super patriotic Luddites who support the war that their beliefs are totally wrong.

Re:Luddite victims.

[FriendlyLurker]

Backfire, true: It will just be held up as an excuse to Kill Switch the internet, remove anonymous access - China's state media is already calling for teaming up with the US to remove anonymous internet access. Sure any registration system will be far from a perfect net - full of holes and work around's for the technically adept - but they only have to get the majority to use it and it will be enough to destroy the Internets potential to bring true accountability and openness to our respective governments. Something that our traditional media channels have utterly failed to do.

Re:Luddite victims.

[Anonymous Coward]

Backfire suggests unintended consequences.

On the contrary, it's been proven that a tiny poke in the Achilles world trade centre, causes the land of the free to implode in a counterproductive, authoritarian cluster fuck.

It has a certain beauty to it. Much like a slow motion train crash.

Re:Luddite victims.

[Ailure]

If it's even meant to backfire, if there was a group I wanted to discredit I would spread a virus in the name of said group instead of the group I take part.

I don't believe it's the case in the situation though. Experience tells me that most people don't realize that protesting through destructive means rarely works well...

Re:Luddite victims.

[lxs]

Wasn't the 'plan Colombia' worm designed to do the same? Didn't work a decade ago and it doesn't work now. Unless it's a false flag operation.

Re:Luddite victims.

[Moryath]

If China wants to try to kill anonymous access, that's all the more reason our laws should say no logging, no tracking, EVER.

And fuck the MafiAA and the fascists, who are the only ones who think differently.

As for traditional media channels - let's face it, they failed us a long time ago. The simpering, fawning "yay Obama" types in 2008 were just the most blatant, but most of the world has seen that kind of behavior for years - chinese media, iranian media, russian pravda, BBC, and pretty much everything else.

Re:Luddite victims.

[TheRaven64]

If China wants to try to kill anonymous access, that's all the more reason our laws should say no logging, no tracking, EVER.

That's terrible logic. China has laws against murder, does that mean the USA should have laws requiring you to shoot everyone you see? There are rational arguments against logging and tracking online, we don't need irrational ones.

Re:Luddite victims.

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary, it's been proven that a tiny poke in the Achilles world trade centre, causes the land of the free to implode in a counterproductive, authoritarian cluster fuck

That may be true, but that wasn't what they wanted to have happen. They wanted the US to remove its armies from muslim lands . It resulted in even more American troops in Muslim lands.

Re:Luddite victims.

[umghhh]

why cannot we bomb the guy out of existence? Ohh wait - have we not tried to do just this for few last years? Ohhhhh.....

Re:Luddite victims.

[Shompol]

You are wrong. Obviously they just wanted to clear some downtown space for a mosque. "Remove your armies and bring world peace" act it was not.

Re:Luddite victims.

[Quiet_Desperation]

Right. I see *more* rabid ideology on the Internet than I ever saw in the Old Media. We seem more polarized than ever, and I blame the ability of people to go to various ideological sites and sit around in echo chambers while they fine tune their reality distortion fields. And by "we" I mean you lot out there. I discarded ideology decades ago when I realized what a mug's game it was.

Re:Luddite victims.

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell did you manange to squeeze in Obama?!

You're so full of shit.

Re:Luddite victims.

[ScrewMaster]

Backfire suggests unintended consequences.

On the contrary, it's been proven that a tiny poke in the Achilles world trade centre, causes the land of the free to implode in a counterproductive, authoritarian cluster fuck.

That may be true, but that wasn't what they wanted to have happen. They wanted the US to remove its armies from muslim lands . It resulted in even more American troops in Muslim lands.

Yes. In other words, Al Quaeda's plan backfired, in an (ahem!) Biblical sort of way.

Re:Luddite victims.

[lgw]

It's particularly silly in this case, since US involvement in Iraq is already winding down. Somehow I doubt this is someone shouting "and stay out!" after we've already left - it seems much more likely an excuse invented after the fact (by the actual author, or as you mention, a Joe-job).

Re:Luddite victims.

[ScrewMaster]

why cannot we bomb the guy out of existence? Ohh wait - have we not tried to do just this for few last years? Ohhhhh.....

Sure, but then people get all riled up about "collateral damage". Just send in a hit squad to "disappear" the bastard. Do that enough times, and you might have an effective deterrent. Matter of fact, I understand the Mossad has some experience with that, so long as we don't insist they use Blackberries.

Re:Luddite victims.

[gnapster]

Unless the worm's author is American. The US hasn't done much domestic bombing, yet.

Re:Luddite victims.

[jandersen]

... destroy the Internets potential to bring true accountability and openness to our respective governments

I like your unlimited idealism; I just don't like to be immersed to my neck in the cesspit of SPAM and other duplicity that the internet so uniquely enables.

Apart from that - what makes you think that anonymity makes it possible to hold governments and big business to account? All this is just a dummy; something to keep potential troublemakers occupied with thundering impotently on their soapboxes instead of organising something more worthwhile.

The real problem is not "censure", but the complete lack of ethical standards and moral leadership. Don't get me wrong, I am not talking about "moral" as in the religious right, but moral as in being trustworthy, decent, reliable: some very fundamental and practical things. When newsmedia and public figures of all kinds are shamelessly twisting everything, then we have a real problem - because that means that democracy is meaningless because people never know the facts about any important issue.

No, give me a bit of censure, if that is what it takes to ensure truthful and reliable reporting.

Re:Luddite victims.

[feepness]

I can understand his message, but unfortunately this sort of things always backfires. I'm not sure how he thinks a virus is going to convince the super patriotic Luddites who support the war that their beliefs are totally wrong.

You guys need to keep up on current events. The war in Iraq has officially been over for nearly two weeks!!!! Mission accomplished!

Of course, we're still in a state of national emergency.

Re:Luddite victims.

[ScrewMaster]

a tiny poke in the Achilles world trade centre

I gather from your smug demeanor and spelling of "centre" that you're not American. Let me ask you something: if someone performed a similar act of mass-murder in your country ... would you consider it as inconsequential? Would it be a "tiny poke"?

Whether you agree with the direction our government and law enforcement have taken in the years since 9/11 (and I, personally, do not) dismissing the deaths of so many people, of so many nationalities in such a cavalier fashion is decidedly uncivilized.

Just remember this: 9/11 did little but slightly accelerate processes that have been at work in this country for far longer. I don't give Al Qaeda too much credit for the train wreck, and neither should you.

Re:Luddite victims.

[FriendlyLurker]

I discarded ideology decades ago when I realized what a mug's game it was.

Sure no problem - but do you really want to discard "news" backed by independently verifiable facts while you were at it? That is all most of the "we" in the "you lot out there" you are referring to want - news along with the source material free of spin... pretty simple really, and nothing to do with ideology. We can all pile our own ideology on top afterward.

Old Media is mostly echo spin chamber devoid of any verifiable facts - the "polarization" you observe on the internet is the opposite beginning to seep through - message from outside the echo chamber trickling through in polar opposite to the mainstream old media rhetoric. If it is quality online news then it references every source that the message was based on. Of course this does not mean they are all reliable or trustworthy - the majority still are not - which is why "we" are all calling for the source material along with our news summary soundbites. Here is one overview of the "new media" landscape, one of many - but this one happens to include more on your point of view that the internet is nothing more than a bunch of rabid ideology.

Re:Luddite victims.

[Quiet_Desperation]

Sure no problem - but do you really want to discard "news" backed by independently verifiable facts while you were at it?

Um, what?

That is all most of the "we" in the "you lot out there" you are referring to want - news along with the source material free of spin... pretty simple really, and nothing to do with ideology.

No, that's not at all what I was referring to. I'm no defender of Old Media. Far from it.

Wow. I don't think it's possible for you to have misread what I said any more than you have. This is some sort of record.

but this one happens to include more on your point of view that the internet is nothing more than a bunch of rabid ideology.

I didn't say it was "nothing more" than rabid ideology. You know, that's another problem with people these days- they any comment they see to an illogical extremist strawman POV.

Re:Luddite victims.

[FriendlyLurker]

I just don't like to be immersed to my neck in the cesspit of SPAM and other duplicity that the internet so uniquely enables.

The real world has crime - even turning a country into some kind of controlled Stazi state in the name of defending against "crime" will not change that. Most of us are not prepared to live in a police state/baby pen internet under the (fake) pretense of knocking a few percentage points off the crime stats or child porn bogymen population.

Apart from that - what makes you think that anonymity makes it possible to hold governments and big business to account? All this is just a dummy; something to keep potential troublemakers occupied with thundering impotently on their soapboxes instead of organizing something more worthwhile.

As for holding governments and big business to account here is one example (Disclaimer: In My Opinion) on an issue that indirectly affects most Americans in a big way : The action, enabled by anonymous open and free internet access. And here we are seeing the reaction: Two influential think tanks have seen the writing on the wall - two think tanks that have a history of being ahead of the curve in changes to government policy. Sure many here will argue that one is not related to the other in any way - that it was always the plan from the start - but that would just be unverifiable opinion, the same as mine is. My money is on the massive amount of new factual data enabling better informed decisions to be made - as should always be the case in a true democracy - something that would not have been possible if we did not have an open anonymous internet. Apparently, I am not alone in the above opinion, professionals who know better than most share it: "Afghanistan intelligence flawed, says ex-CIA man". All due to open anonymous and free internet access. Here's to apposing any attempt to messing with it by grubby little politician hands...

Re:Luddite victims.

[lwsimon]

I'm an American, and I agree with GP.

On a human scale, 9/11 was a tragedy of epic proportions. It is a day and an act that I will never forget or forgive, period. From the standpoint of a nation of 300 million people, it was a pinprick. The impact of the domestic policy enacted in the wake of 9/11 an order of magnitude larger than that of the work of 12 nutjobs.

Re:Luddite victims.

[FriendlyLurker]

My apologies - sincerely.

Re:Luddite victims.

[DrSkwid]

1991
Bin Laden says Al-Qaeda main policy is to get US troops out of Saudi

11th Sep 2001
Al-Qaeda attack NYC and Pentagon

29th April 2003
US announce that virtually all US troops will vacate Suadi Arabia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2984547.stm

May 1 May 2003
George Bush gives the "Mission Accomplished" speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Mission_Accomplished_Speech

Conspiracy away

Re:Luddite victims.

[FriendlyLurker]

Playing the devils advocate... the tragedy that was 9/11 is up-to what, ~20K deaths and counting from over 90 countries. That figure puts the tragedy at around the annual death toll for sexually transmitted diseases on the US death toll lists. I don't think I am alone in saying that it would have been more positive and beneficial for the average American to prevent more lives being lost, decrease the US led future terrorist recruitment drive and instead invest several trillion US dollars into the other top 10 preventable diseases on that list that are going to kill Americans every year, anyay.

Re:Luddite victims.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I agree.

Its much better to have just ignored the people who did this. I mean, what more could they do? ...

A cruise missile hitting Mecca would have very little actual damage. Even a few casualties would be the merest Pinprick to the Global Islamic Community. I think the response would belie that though.

Re:Luddite victims.

[ScrewMaster]

On a human scale, 9/11 was a tragedy of epic proportions. It is a day and an act that I will never forget or forgive, period.

I agree.

From the standpoint of a nation of 300 million people, it was a pinprick.

I agree.

The impact of the domestic policy enacted in the wake of 9/11 an order of magnitude larger than that of the work of 12 nutjobs.

I agree, which is why I said, Whether you agree with the direction our government and law enforcement have taken in the years since 9/11 (and I, personally, do not) .

However, I dislike it when anyone says that twenty-thousand-odd deaths are of little consequence, and the GP's tone was indicative that he felt so because they were Americans.

More to the point, however, is that you (and many other people, I might add) have this idea that everything bad that's happened since 9/11, regarding overreaching government behavior, is a direct result of 9/11. It was not: 9/11 was an excuse, a rationale, that permitted the Federal Government (certain parts of it, anyway) to re-assume powers it had had taken away from it some time ago.

Start with the Patriot Act: everything thinks that it just magically appeared in front of Congress right after 9/11. That's a huge document, however, and a lot of thought went into it. Those who put it in front of Congress had it ready, just waiting for the right situation to occur so they could ram it through. And they did. I'll leave it up to you conspiracy types to decide if 9/11 was allowed to happen for just that reason.

Keep in mind that law enforcement, specifically the FBI, was just as abusive during the early stages of the Cold War as they are now. It got so bad that Congress had to step in and limit their power. And those limits were in place for decades for good reason until the Patriot Act stripped them away. Now we're right back where we were, only worse because they have a hell of a lot more technology at their beck-and-call than they did then.

Terrorism actually offers much better justification than the Red Scare ever did. There's no overt enemy to point at and say, "there's the bad guy ... get him!" It's just this miasma of fear that can be used to get anything through Congress.

Re:Luddite victims.

[Runaway1956]

I'll echo that you are wrong. Osama, whatever else he may or may not be, is a pretty smart guy. He hit us precisely where he did BECAUSE he anticipated the kind of damage that it caused. Remember - this was not the first attempt to destroy the WTC. The first attempt was a dismal failure, the second a spectacular success. The strike at the Pentagon seems a rather serious miscalculation on his part - the White House would have had a much greater psychological impact. Of course - that great an impact may well have precipitated a real crusade against Islam. General war against Mecca, Teheran, and all the other power centers in Islam. Of course, Osama may have realized that destroying the White House WOULD have the result that I say it would, and he didn't want to cause that. But, rest assured, he had a pretty good idea what the WTC would cost us.

Re:Luddite victims.

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, I agree.

Its much better to have just ignored the people who did this. I mean, what more could they do? ...

A cruise missile hitting Mecca would have very little actual damage. Even a few casualties would be the merest Pinprick to the Global Islamic Community. I think the response would belie that though.

Well ... to be fair he did say he was playing devils' advocate. But yeah, I agree with you: there would be consequences for that. Surprised nobody's done it yet, just to watch the global conflagration.

Re:Luddite victims.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

More people die on the roads due to automobile accidents every year in America by a long shot. Have some perspective in terms of real actual risk. In those terms it was a tiny poke. 2752 people died as a result of the World Trade center incident in the ten years since 330,000 or so have died in automobile accidents. And yet because of the 2752 we are willing to give up out basic freedoms. We have the government using millimeter wave radar on it's citizens and everyone taking off their shoes at the airport not to mention the wiretaps that AT&T help them put in place. It's absolutely a disproportionate illogical reaction based purely on fear and emotion and has no perspective for real risk at all. And holy crap are defense contractors cashing in on the copious quantities of cash that are being thrown at the problem. As if security is a product you can buy off the shelf.

If we were to use logic and critical thinking in this country we would burn more calories trying to figure out how to deal with drunk and irresponsible driving than terrorism. But we prefer not to think.

Re:Luddite victims.

[ScrewMaster]

Whether you agree with the direction our government and law enforcement have taken in the years since 9/11 (and I, personally, do not)

My goodness, did I ever set off a bunch of soapboxes. I'm, not arguing with your conclusions, matter of fact I agree with them, but if you actually read my post in the context that it was written, you'd probably have responded differently.

Re:Luddite victims.

[ScrewMaster]

More people die on the roads due to automobile accidents every year in America by a long shot. Have some perspective in terms of real actual risk. In those terms it was a tiny poke.

Sorry, I clipped the wrong quote:

My goodness, did I ever set off a bunch of soapboxes. I'm, not arguing with your conclusions, matter of fact I agree with them, but if you actually read my post in the context that it was written, you'd probably have responded differently.

Re:Luddite victims.

[Quiet_Desperation]

Apology? On Slashdot? (head explodes)

Re:Luddite victims.

[carp3_noct3m]

No one with a lick of self respect or sense believes "they" really thought it would remove armies from foreign lands. Reza Aslan says they just use things like foreign military bases, palestine, etc, as an excuse, but the mistake many make is assuming those aren't valid concerns all on their own. The leaders of AQ are too smart to think such a dumb thing.

Re:Luddite victims.

[carp3_noct3m]

Forgot to finish-- I would actually argue that the brunt of their intention was representative of the very definition (which is in itself highly debatable) of terrorism: primarily being to inculcate fear.

Re:Luddite victims.

[ScrewMaster]

What do you call the incident in Iraq or Afghanistan? Most people call it an act of mass murder..... In terms of terrorist attacks, there are a lot of countries with plenty of those. Russia, England, Spain.

Sure. And you will never hear me say that those attacks were "pinpricks", that those deaths were any less significant than any other act of mass murder. Why does everyone persist in misinterpreting what I'm trying to say? I am not the one trying to diminish anyone else's tragedy.

Re:Luddite victims.

[BlackSnake112]

Apology? On Slashdot? (head explodes)

Is the end of days near?

Re:Luddite victims.

[jandersen]

The real world has crime - even turning a country into some kind of controlled Stazi state in the name of defending against "crime" will not change that. Most of us are not prepared to live in a police state/baby pen internet under the (fake) pretense of knocking a few percentage points off the crime stats or child porn bogymen population.

Crime? I'm not talking about crime - at least in the classical sense. I'm talking about the fact that far the largest part of email traffic is SPAM, and unless you use AdBlock and NoScript on your browser, you are bombarded with what is mostly fraudulent adverts and idiotic porn. And the impression that the internet is "free" as in beer, is an illusion - it is paid by our taxes or included userfees - so I am paying for something that is some 95% useless to me. Shouldn't I expect my payment to be protected against this sort of unscrupulous abuse? I rather think so.

Re:Luddite victims.

[lwsimon]

WTC, the Pentagon, Flight 93, plus combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan - that's probably how he arrived there.

Re:Luddite victims.

[jorgevillalobos]

Remember the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. It was supposedly headed towards DC. The attacks were only partially successful in that regard.

I wonder how different things would be if the 4th plane would have crashed on its target. It seems 9/11 is normally remembered as an attack on the WTC (rarely the Pentagon is mentioned), so maybe in that parallel reality 9/11 would have been remembered as the attack on the White House.

Re:Luddite victims.

[Falconhell]

They wanted US troops out of Saudi arabia, and they are out! Sounds like they got what they wanted.

Re:Luddite victims.

[Quiet_Desperation]

Near?! They've come and gone!

Re:Luddite victims.

[lwsimon]

Antiwar.com shows 4418 total deaths (combat + noncombat while deployed). Surely they're as liberal with those numbers as can be. Add 3,000 for 9/11, and we're up to 7,400 or so.

You're right, I can't come up with "Over 10,000". "Over 9,000", obviously, but not over 10,000.

Re:Luddite victims.

[vulcan1701]

So what would you have done in the wake of 9/11? It is easy for us to sit in front of our PC's acting high and mighty when you have a country asking the leaders, "What are you going to do?" The media showed the footage over and over. Did we react in anger? Probably. Bush said that we would fight the enemy at a place of our choosing. I think he did that in order to keep them too busy to attack us at home. That part of his plan happened. Al Qaeda came to Iraq and Afghanistan to assist in killing our troops there and kept them away from the states. As for all the stuff that extended powers and long lines at the airports back home being responsible for security in the US after 9/11, who knows what part that played. It was done more as prevention rather than active discovery of terrorists. I am sure that the Patriot Act was authored quick as not only were first responders and the like volunteering their time in NYC, legalists and legislative aides were volunteering their time as well (Michael Moore is in the business of making movies for a profit, not discovering relevent material) I would have thought though that with a more liberal congress, obliteration of the Patriot Act would have happened two years ago. Or one of the liberal federal judges would have placed an injunction on the Act as potentially violating the 4th Amendment.

Re:Luddite victims.

[ScrewMaster]

However, I dislike it when anyone says that twenty-thousand-odd deaths are of little consequence, and the GP's tone was indicative that he felt so because they were Americans.

Wait, what? Twenty thousand deaths? I thought the entire death toll from 9/11 was less than 3000. Unless I'm reading that wrong, you think that 9/11 killed more than 20,000 people.

Typo. I meant "two thousand odd." Sorry.

Re:Luddite victims.

[ScrewMaster]

Twenty thousand?

Just over *two* thousand people died in the 9/11 attacks. Better check your facts.

It was a damn typo. Geez.

"Anti-US" Hacker?

[geminidomino]

Where do they get that? Plenty of Americans with functioning synapses say the same damn thing about the Iraq Clusterfuck, and Terry Jones *IS* a fucking troglodyte.

I mean, okay... There's not really any excuse for releasing malicious code on anyone, so he gets no pass there. But if the only communication from him and info about him is from that video... shit, he addresses "Americans" more rationally then the two sides of the idiot aisle do each other.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Chrisq]

Where do they get that? Plenty of Americans with functioning synapses say the same damn thing about the Iraq Clusterfuck, and Terry Jones *IS* a fucking troglodyte.

You are absolutely correct. This is the same mentality as those who say that opposing the building of the Ground Zero Mosque is "anti-Islamic". You can dislike something supported by some members of a group without being "anti" that group.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it if not anti-Islamic? Should churches and synagogues in the vicinity be torn down? New churches and synagogues banned in the vicinity?
This is essentially a non-issue among most New Yorkers, the people who have an issue with this come from elsewhere, part of extremist Christian groups.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[internettoughguy]

Where do they get that? Plenty of Americans with functioning synapses say the same damn thing about the Iraq Clusterfuck, and Terry Jones *IS* a fucking troglodyte.

You are absolutely correct. This is the same mentality as those who say that opposing the building of the Ground Zero Mosque is "anti-Islamic". You can dislike something supported by some members of a group without being "anti" that group.

No, It's more like saying that those who are opposed to Al-Qaeda are anti-Islamic. Those who are opposed to what amounts to little more than a Muslim YMCA, are most likely anti-Islamic.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[dave420]

It's not a mosque, and it's not at ground zero. Anyone who says they can't build their community center on their own property is doing so because they don't like Islam. That's the only possible reason. Oh, or they really like the old coat factory and want it to stay the same - that would work, too.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Anonymous Coward]

What other reason is there to oppose the mosque if not due to an anti-Islamic mindset? Would you be up for the banning of any church's being built around the Alfred P. Murrah building in OKC due to the fact that the bombers were Christian?

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[interkin3tic]

From TFA:

SecureWorks Researcher Joe Stewart believes that Iraq Defense is a Libyan hacker who is trying to gain followers for a cyber jihad hacking group called Brigades of Tariq ibn Ziyad.

It definitely sounds tenuous, my first thought was this was some bored kid in suburbia who accidentally caused some damage and was trying to throw off the trail. It sounds though like Robert McMillian of PC world is convinced. Stewart's article is a little more skeptical about that group being the actual perpetrator, but if it is...

The goal of Tariq ibn Ziyad is "to penetrate U.S. agencies belonging to the U.S. Army," Iraq Resistance said, according to a Google translation of his post announcing the group.

Even then, "anti-american" is arguably an overstatement. Anyway, there might be a little more than just "I don't think the US should be in Iraq."

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[interkin3tic]

This is the same mentality as those who say that opposing the building of the Ground Zero Mosque is "anti-Islamic".

You mean "the Islamic community center two blocks away from ground zero." Just because the media have accepted the term designed to stir up the most controversy and ratings about the issue is no reason to accept the distortion of the facts.

And the fact is that this is not a mosque and it is not at ground zero.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Chrisq]

Except that it has been gradually re-branded from a Mosque - through a mosque including a community centre to a community centre including a mosque. And that the site was damaged in the attacks, making it part of ground zero

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Abcd1234]

How can you oppose a mosque a couple blocks away from ground zero and not be, at least a little bit, anti-Islamic? Upon what other basis would you oppose such a thing, save that you believe the 9/11 terrorists == Islam, and therefore Islam is bad and a mosque is somehow, by it's very association with that religion, "disrespectful" of the victims of 9/11?

Would you similarly oppose a church being built a couple blocks away from the site of an abortion clinic bombing?

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Lunix Nutcase]

And that the site was damaged in the attacks, making it part of ground zero

Only by redefining the term "ground zero". Ground zero does not include any and all areas that has been damaged it only refers to the "point directly below an explosion". So no, it is not at "ground zero" at all.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Chrisq]

Its interesting to compare the reaction of the Muslims supporting the mosque and community centre being build in the area damaged by the planes with the carmalite convent as auschwits, which was relocated.

And yes I would oppose converting a building damaged by a christian anti-abortion bomber to a church, or the opening of an irish Catholic centre at the site of the Baltic exchange.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Custard Horse]

I think part of the problem is that the protesting is based around allowing a building 'for the terrorists' rather than recognising that islamic terrorists make up a tiny fraction of the Islamic community.

Consider this with the fact that muslims were killed in the Twin Towers attack *and* that muslims were also part of the rescue services (plenty of whom lost their lives in the rescue effort) and the protest against the muslim support centre or mosque or whatever seems, well, bigoted.

There was a women from the UK on BBC news on Saturday who lost her son in the attack and she said that you can't blame the Islamic community for the actions of fundamentalists and it is not acceptable to burn sacred texts (referring to the proposed book burning by the disillusioned, former (probably) worst hotel manager, Kentucky pastor nut-job). She then went on to say that she disagreed with the building of the Mosque near ground zero but gave no adequate reasoning. I put this down to her emotional involvement as it contradicts everything else she had said previously.

With such 'logic' you may as well blame men for all war or pigs for tasting so good. How about blaming all Catholics for paedophilia? Some Catholic priests are kiddy-fiddlers therefore all Catholics are kiddy-fiddlers. Fair? I think not.

If you are going to blame a whole religious community you may as well allow a tit-for-tat reaction - I propose allowing muslims to destroy a Christian Church - a good one, Catholic or at least one where they take their shit seriously - but not allow them to rebuild. Karma restored and everyone is equally happy or unhappy.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Chrisq]

Fair enough, refer to it as area damaged in the 911 attacks then.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Chrisq]

If you are going to blame a whole religious community you may as well allow a tit-for-tat reaction - I propose allowing muslims to destroy a Christian Church - a good one, Catholic or at least one where they take their shit seriously - but not allow them to rebuild. Karma restored and everyone is equally happy or unhappy.

I think you will find they have already destroyed hundreds.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Abcd1234]

Its interesting to compare the reaction of the Muslims supporting the mosque and community centre being build in the area damaged by the planes with the carmalite convent as auschwits, which was relocated.

Except, of course, that's completely different. The convent wasn't relocated because some hate-filled "Catholics" ran the camp, but because the Jewish community felt it would distract from the suffering jews were subjected to. Oh, plus the convent was going to be built right on the periphery of the camp. Not a couple blocks away, but literally right there.

'course, I also think that case was fucking ridiculous. But that's neither here nor there. The point is, it's a totally different situation.

And yes I would oppose converting a building damaged by a christian anti-abortion bomber to a church, or the opening of an irish Catholic centre at the site of the Baltic exchange.

Why? Religion didn't cause those acts. People did.

No offense, but your position strikes me as both irrational and bigoted. Doubly so given the area is known for having a large muslim population (it was once nicknamed Little Syria, ffs), and that this facility is actually a couple blocks away from ground zero.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[couchslug]

"You can dislike something supported by some members of a group without being "anti" that group."

There is, it should be noted, no reason NOT to oppose a religion or all religions on their own lack of merit.

The idea that superstition should be respected is silly, and it would be easier to break the hold of superstitions if we were much more comfortable treating them with the contempt such ridiculous beliefs deserve. Religions attacking each other is healthy, because it highlights their defects and their tribalism.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Abcd1234]

And when pretty much 99.9999% of the people who oppose the Iraq war criticize it because "those durn Amerikkkan Neokkkon Fascist hicks are at it again"

They do? Weird. Because I'm pretty sure most people opposed the Iraq war because, you know, it was justified with lies.

But hey, what do I know, I'm not a total fucking idiot...

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[hairyfeet]

I probably shouldn't feed the PC troll, but WTF. They named it "Cordoba House" which apparently you know jack and shit about history, because Cordoba was the place in Spain where a great triumph of Islam over Christianity happened and they destroyed a church to build a mosque and the sad part is many PC Americans are too ignorant to history to see they might as well have named the damned thing "Mission Accomplished". You might want to look up about the 100 year old Catholic church that was also destroyed during 9/11 because guess what? They are NOT being given the right to rebuild.

So you see Mr PC AC Troll, it isn't about building a place of worship, it is about building a place of worship whose name practically means Fuck the West on the site where they...well fucked the west. How sad that the PC are so quick to make kissie with the religion that wants to destroy us, while hating anything Christian. Hell I'm a fricking Atheist and the way the PC are so quick to roll over just makes me want to puke! But before you buy that religion of peace crap, why don't you see the violence numbers for Europe in countries that have a high Muslim population? They just don't play nice unless you play by their rules which means Sharia for everybody.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[daem0n1x]

Then give me any good reason why someone can not build a perfectly legal building in their own property.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Mister Whirly]

How about Ground Two? Zero would imply the epicenter of the attacks.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Abcd1234]

The idea that superstition should be respected is silly

People's rights should be respected. In this case, the rights of an owner of a private piece of property to build a facility on it, and within that facility to exercise their right to freedom of belief and expression. Religion, itself, has fuck all to do with it.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[daem0n1x]

I'm European. Most people I know used to like the Americans before the stupid, illegal and outrageous invasion. Specially when the lies used to justify it were so lame that, outside of the US, only a mouth-foaming ultra-right-wing retard would buy any of them (not that our media hadn't tried).

Before the invasions the demonstrations throughout the world made it into the Guiness in number of participants. Many people I know went to a demonstrations for the first time ever. Most of them don't even know what a "neocon" is.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[daem0n1x]

Your post couldn't make it more clear that you're a bigot fed on Fox News propaganda.

The catholic church the evil infidels "destroyed" is still there. I visited it a few years ago. It's the main landmark in the beautiful city of Cordoba. Oh, by the way, they take great pride in their Arab heritage.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

And yes I would oppose converting a building damaged by a christian anti-abortion bomber to a church, or the opening of an irish Catholic centre at the site of the Baltic exchange.

Why? Religion didn't cause those acts. People did.

That's a stupid question. The bad act those people committed has already been done, and the person trying to build a church knows that. It takes some serious balls and a bad attitude to make a decision like that when you know damn well THAT people are going to be upset and WHY, especially when what you're building is something that, in theory, is protected and reverential and an "it would be an insult to our religion if you asked us to leave or tore it down" sort of thing--which basically says "I know you're going to be upset, and perhaps I'm even doing it BECAUSE it will upset you, or perhaps not; however, you're powerless unless you want to start a war with us".

Because seriously? This isn't about defending the people who actually did the thing. You learn a lot about the people who are building the church (although not necessarily their whole religion) by how they handle delicate things like that. The above examples? Pretty nasty people. And even if you say that once it's built it's just a house of worship that people use normally--who would move into a place like that knowing its location? How do the patrons handle the controversy--do they even care? If a Christian church was set up in a place a Christian had deliberately attacked, I would expect as a sign of decency that they would have some obvious, public way for attendees to offer prayers to those hurt, which would hopefully be permanent. If it's only up for a couple weeks or months, that says something too.

In the case of the mosque, a couple blocks may or may not be enough--I don't know, I don't live in NYC, that's up to them. If they show a halfway decent attitude, I say let them, but I don't know anything about the decision except some third-hand information from comments.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[gad_zuki!]

>Plenty of Americans with functioning synapses say the same damn thing about the Iraq Clusterfuck, and Terry Jones *IS* a fucking troglodyte.

Pardon me, but my memory of 2003 is pretty good. Plenty of Americans were chomping at the bit to start a war they couldn't afford for reasons based on intel that was obviously massaged. I remember almost zero skepticism about this. Tthe US's view on Islam is pretty low, to the point where we are having a national discourse on why you can't build mosques in certain places.

Please don't make the US out to be this enlightened culture. I'm a liberal atheist. I see this shit all the time. At worst, our culture is this awful strawman, at best we're a religious dominated conservative culture with an itchy trigger finger. Let's not pat ourselves too hard on the back. We're on the long road to sanity and secular enlightenment, and usually we go as much backwards as we do forwards.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Abcd1234]

Man, this needs to be modded up +1 Informative and Hilarious...

As an aside, let's say, for the moment, that the amusingly misinformed twat GP was right... it still wouldn't fucking matter. The US is a country built on ideals. Either those ideals exist and are to be lived by, or they don't. Either these people have the right to do with their private property what they choose, or they don't.

'course, as always, the rabid right has once again demonstrated that they believe strongly in the constitution and the bill of rights... unless, of course, your exercising those rights offends them in some way. And this is especially true when its election season and the base needs riling up...

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[mr100percent]

No, they named it "Cordoba House" because for centuries Cordoba was a place where Christians, Muslims, and Jews freely lived and worked together. Historians all agree that Moorish rule was a period of tolerance in European history, so much so that those centuries were called the "Golden Age of Judaism" since Jews could work and study freely when they were banned elsewhere in Europe. The great Jewish scholar Maimonides came out of that environment, at a time when the Muslims gave free university tuition to all citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

It's a terrible slander to start accusing the Muslims and Jews and Christians on board with this project as having some sort of malevolence. This Republican talking point shocks me because it's completely false and anyone who even glances at Wikipedia would find it so, yet still gets spread. Rather than argue the point, they renamed the place to Park51 to avoid false controversy

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Abcd1234]

It takes some serious balls and a bad attitude to make a decision like that when you know damn well THAT people are going to be upset and WHY

Only if you assume people are bigoted assholes who can't differentiate between a religion and a bunch of extremist terrorists.

Do you really think so little of people? If so, maybe that highlights the *real* problem, don't you think?

And even if you say that once it's built it's just a house of worship that people use normally--who would move into a place like that knowing its location?

Uh, maybe the many muslims who've lived, worked, and worshipped in the area for decades?

If a Christian church was set up in a place a Christian had deliberately attacked, I would expect as a sign of decency that they would have some obvious, public way for attendees to offer prayers to those hurt, which would hopefully be permanent.

People can pray for whatever the fuck they want to pray for. Why the fuck should any such facility be obligated to continuously apologize for the acts of a bunch of assholes, save that people are too stupid to understand that said assholes don't represent the entirety of said religion?

But it doesn't matter, because all of this is missing the entire fucking point:

These people bought and paid for a piece of *private property*. They are now building a *legal facility* on those grounds. Protest it all you want, but that is their right, and neither the people nor the government have any right to interfere. Don't like it? Change the constitution.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[WhiplashII]

The US is a country built on ideals.

Unless someone wants to burn the Koran. Then the FBI is sent to "convince" them to change their minds.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Abcd1234]

why is it that when people disagree with liberals, they're bigots, but when liberals disagree with others, they're enlightened?

Why is it that when someone refers to a belief as bigoted, the assumption is that person is a liberal? Are you saying conservatives can't believe in bigotry?

can you get over the "everyone but me is racist"

Racist? What? Hint: Islam is a religion, not a race.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[geminidomino]

I would say a more correct statement would be "99.9999% of us agree to disagree."

I dunno about that, though. It seems to me -- and maybe it's just noise level, but given the advertising for the various talking heads' shows -- that it's more than .0001% of the population that make up the howler monkeys screaming and flinging feces at each other over differences in idealogical minutiae between the two leading franchises^Wparties.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Ender_Wiggin]

Survey shows that 2/3 of those who oppose the Islamic center in lower Manhattan also hate Islam. So you "can" dislike something supported by some members of a group without being "anti" that group, but this is a bad example to prove that point.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Ender_Wiggin]

Let's not play that game. Throughout history, Christians burned down mosques, Muslims destroyed mandirs, Hindus destroyed churches, Christians attack gurdwaras, Buddhists destroyed mosques, (all examples I can cite). The cycle continues.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Knitebane]

But hey, what do I know, I'm not a total fucking idiot...

[citation needed]

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[geminidomino]

Pardon me, but my memory of 2003 is pretty good. Plenty of Americans were chomping at the bit to start a war they couldn't afford for reasons based on intel that was obviously massaged.

It's not 2003 anymore. Many of us know better now, and being against the stupidity over there is only "Anti-US" in the tiny, deranged minds of the furthest of far-right wingnuts. Even the mainstream right has laid off the "Unpatriotic" bullshit lately.

Please don't make the US out to be this enlightened culture...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA...

Don't worry. I would never, EVER do that. I'm just saying that anything in that video to label the guy as an "Anti-US Hacker" requires some SEVERE FoxNews'O'Vision.

Virus-writing script-kiddie scumbag? Abso-fragging-lutely.

Anti-US? [Citation Needed]

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Custard Horse]

I think you will find they have already destroyed hundreds.

Who do you mean by "they"? Fundamentalists or just Muslims in general? Did you actually read any of my post just the bits that appealed to your intrinsic racism?

In the UK there are quite a few right-wing people with the mantra "send them back". I even witnessed someone explaining the logic of this to a Jamaican woman who moved to the UK in the 50s as was encouraged under the Commonwealth. It was okay though, the person doing the explaining said "you're alright though" which made everything okay [phew]..

If you pre-judge a person based upon their perceived group you will only get yourself into trouble. For instance, is 'your mom' a backward under-educated shit kicker based on the utterings from her offspring? Admittedly I don't know the answer to that one but only because I have no evidence either way.

You would be pretty miffed if I tarred you with that brush though wouldn't you? Think carefully before you answer that one unless you think Hitler and Pol Pot were righteous blokes in which case I'm done here

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

It takes some serious balls and a bad attitude to make a decision like that when you know damn well THAT people are going to be upset and WHY

Only if you assume people are bigoted assholes who can't differentiate between a religion and a bunch of extremist terrorists.

Do you really think so little of people? If so, maybe that highlights the *real* problem, don't you think?

...?

No, even if you assume people can tell the difference, you're still trampling on their feelings. If you depend on them to yield, when you could just as easily move it a few blocks (and maybe it's not just as easy to move--depending on the real estate market nearby), then you're being an asshole, and there's nothing else to say about the matter.

Who would move into a place like that knowing its location?

Uh, maybe the many muslims who've lived, worked, and worshipped in the area for decades?

All of whom are presumably going to go to your church/mosque even if you move it slightly.

I'm not saying to disenfranchise them, and I don't know why you're treating me like I am.

If a Christian church was set up in a place a Christian had deliberately attacked, I would expect as a sign of decency that they would have some obvious, public way for attendees to offer prayers to those hurt, which would hopefully be permanent.

People can pray for whatever the fuck they want to pray for. Why the fuck should any such facility be obligated to continuously apologize for the acts of a bunch of assholes, save that people are too stupid to understand that said assholes don't represent the entirety of said religion?

They aren't obligated. If they were, you couldn't say anything about their motives when they actually do those things. However, they bear witness every day to the world that those assholes changed. They don't need to be full of hate for the assholes to want to offer prayers to those who had to or still have to deal with the aftermath.

I can understand if you don't get it, but when you start any new franchise, you are provided a clean slate to do with as you please. Religious institutions, in particular, are social places, and they give you an opportunity to make a social statement.

If they're moving into a place that's that politically charged and not making any statement at all, they're allowed, but I'm a little disappointed. Because, they ARE starting fresh. They could say, "Hey guys, let's do a show of support for our neighbors and head off any political controversy by making a public showing of our humanity, our empathy, and our culture." It would be just as easy as doing nothing, but it would be an opportunity that likely they won't have again.

But it doesn't matter, because all of this is missing the entire fucking point:

These people bought and paid for a piece of *private property*. They are now building a *legal facility* on those grounds. Protest it all you want, but that is their right, and neither the people nor the government have any right to interfere. Don't like it? Change the constitution.

Who said I was protesting it? I'm pointing out that not everyone who's upset is being unreasonable. Heck of a strawman you've got there, though.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Abcd1234]

Yeah, sure buddy. Gimme some evidence or I'm assuming this is just made-up right-wing propaganda. And no, a story in Faux News doesn't count, I said evidence, not made-up bullshit speculation.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[WhiplashII]

Ooookay, I didn't realize that you were so out of touch. Google can tell you everything:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CBwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fhostednews%2Fap%2Farticle%2FALeqM5hKWWJdTrfALpbYfWB6fM58p6u-pwD9I4I32G0&rct=j&q=burn%20the%20Koran%20FBI&ei=bkqOTM2ZLdO3ngezlsX5Cw&usg=AFQjCNFQGRg36usT2Qe8-bhw2j2zE8dRqA&sig2=u4MRMGpVULmPf3ka7HyaYw&cad=rja

Is the associated press also part of the conspiracy against your worldview?

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[lwsimon]

The Church on Ground Zero was Orthodox, not Catholic, if memory serves.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Abcd1234]

The FBI spent about a half hour talking with Jones, but church spokesman Wayne Sapp would not disclose what they discussed. Agents leaving the church wouldn't talk to an Associated Press reporter.

Jones said earlier this week that agents have visited him twice since he announced his plans in July, the last visit about two weeks ago.

Uhuh... so Jones was visited *three separate times*. Never once did he claim to have been coerced.

But its the big old bad gubbermint that's just strong-arming him.

Right. Sure buddy.

Did you consider that maybe, just maybe, they were talking about potential violence both at his rally, and directed at his parishioners as a result of it? That the FBI really was just concerned with "public safety"?

No, of course not. It's gotta be an evil conspiracy. The pastor was just mysteriously silenced, and has remained strangely reticent to tell anyone...

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Abcd1234]

No, even if you assume people can tell the difference, you're still trampling on their feelings.

Huh? Anyone who isn't a bigot or an islamophobe wouldn't have hurt feelings in the first place.

All of whom are presumably going to go to your church/mosque even if you move it slightly.

But why the hell should they move it at all? There's literally no reason, unless you believe that Islam == 9/11 == terrorism.

Who said I was protesting it? I'm pointing out that not everyone who's upset is being unreasonable.

Really? Because I have yet to see a *reason* for objecting to this mosque/community center, save to protect the feelings of a few bigots. And that's no reason at all.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[WhiplashII]

I'm not the one with a conspiracy theory...

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[theArtificial]

Who do you mean by "they"? Fundamentalists or just Muslims in general? Did you actually read any of my post just the bits that appealed to your intrinsic racism?

Way to paint someone with the racist brush by implying that Muslims are a race. I agree with a lot of what you're saying but not this part.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[O('_')O_Bush]

"Was it right to remove Saddam from power, try him and execute him for his crimes? Abso-F@#$%ing-lutely."

Was it our responsibility or duty to do so? No.

Iraq was a sovereign state, just like we were. Violating its sovereignty with false justifications is a real international tragedy.

Just to put this into perspective, our recognized sovereignty is one of the main reasons that keeps China from invading the U.S.A. on the same premises. The other is that China is a strong believer in sovereignty so that it doesn't have to recognize Tibet/Taiwan as separate states, but that's a different discussion.

Point is, we basically said, "Fuck their sovereignty, we're the best, we can do whatever the hell we want as long as the U.K. and some of our euro butt-buddies in the U.N. agree.", and took over.

You can be sure that action, along with the rest of the adopted foreign policy that Clinton mostly started with the invasion of Yugoslavia in 1999, helped change the course of world politics and state recognition in ways that we don't realize yet and probably won't for another couple of decades.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Antisyzygy]

I think if the situation was reversed, and some Christians were building a Church near a place predominately Muslim, and it so happened Christians not affiliated with the Church builders had previously attacked this land and killed thousands of people, it would end up being a shit show all the same.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Antisyzygy]

I protest the building of all churches.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[BlackPignouf]

FAIL.

Have you been to Cordoba?
Have you seen the Mezquita?

I'm also an atheist, but the Great Mosque is easily one of the most beautiful buildings I've seen in my entire life.
I find it more impressive/peaceful/beautiful than the Alhambra, Notre Dame, Chrysler Building, Golden Gate or any iconic piece of architecture.
Pictures don't make it justice. (http://www.trucospc.info/public/monu/La%20Mezquita%20de%20Cordoba.jpg)

I don't believe in God, but the Mezquita is one of the only places I know where I could begin to understand faith.

By the way, please don't brag about your history knowledge, it's really not adequate :
The Mezquita has been converted from an old Basilica.
The old building hasn't been destroyed, and only the parts that didn't fit into the new building have been removed. The rest has been painted over and used as foundation for the mosque.
Oh, and given the amount of churches in Spain, it's pretty hard to find a large area in the city center without any church! :)

Eventually, a big chunk of the Mosque has been destroyed after the Reconquista. You know what for? To build a freaking Cathedral in the middle!
The result is a tasteless stain in this masterpiece.
When Charles V saw the building, he said "You have destroyed something unique in the world in order to make something you could have build anywhere else".

Really, Cordoba isn't the worst example Muslim people could choose for a new piece of architecture.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Americano]

I think part of the problem is that the protesting is based around allowing a building 'for the terrorists' rather than recognising that islamic terrorists make up a tiny fraction of the Islamic community.

While I agree with you that this 'scandal' is ridiculous, and certainly smacks of anti-Islamic bigotry, I hope you & all the other enlightened folks out there who see this for what it is will also remember and apply this line of thinking the next time you hear christians being painted as 'nothing but a bunch of right wing, fascist, racist rednecks.'

It happens a lot, and doesn't even require announcement of plans for the building of a church or community center to prompt the outrage.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Urkki]

Are you seriously so retarded that you can't think of a single scenario where someone might oppose the construction of a specific building in a specific location, and not have some deep-seeded bigotry against the entire group of people who use such building?

When pretty much 99.9999% of the people against it are because "those durn muslims attacked us!!!" your bullshit excuses ring very, very hollow.

Well, wasn't it muslims who attacked? At least they themselves believed that so deeply that they were ready to die for it, so who has the authority to say that no, they were false muslims, doing the attack in the name of false islam? No, it's accurate to say that the attack was done in the name of islam, by a group of devout muslims. If a group of christians did an attack at Mecca in the name of Christianity, do you think many muslims would like to have a church built near the site of the attack, in the name of reconciliation or whatever?

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Americano]

Please don't make the US out to be this enlightened culture.

I know. It's nothing but anti-islam all the time from the conservative redneck hicks running the country, amirite?

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war. When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race. America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

From a speech delivered on September 17, 2001. By President George W. Bush, delivered at the Islamic Center of Washington.

I'd call that fairly enlightened, doubly so for George Bush, given the reputation he has among liberals. I'd also say it's fairly ballsy to deliver that message 6 days after the 9/11 attacks, when people were getting beyond their shock, and starting to say... "whose ass do we kick?" He got plenty of shit for Iraq, and rightfully so. But he also stood up to the people saying "let's just nuke the entire middle east back to the stone age," and drew a clear distinction between "the people who did this" and "muslims."

There need to be more people standing up and delivering this message today, but let's not pretend it's nothing but backwards, stone-age thinking here in the US, either.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Abcd1234]

a) Pure supposition.
b) Even if that were true, that doesn't justify bigotry, it just illustrates it.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Abcd1234]

apply this line of thinking the next time you hear christians being painted as 'nothing but a bunch of right wing, fascist, racist rednecks.'

It happens a lot, and doesn't even require announcement of plans for the building of a church or community center to prompt the outrage.

Since when? Certainly *specific* Christians are labeled as such, probably because they are. *All* Christians? Hardly.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Americano]

Ever read slashdot?

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[hairyfeet]

As the person who made the original post, allow me to share some food for thought. Violence "of the 24 major armed conflicts taking place worldwide in 2005, more than half (13) involved Muslim governments or paramilitary groups on one or both sides of the fighting. What's more, among six countries with "emerging armed conflicts," four are predominantly Muslim and another, Thailand, involves a Muslim separatist movement."

Domination- "A "pro-peace" rally in Antwerp peopled by mostly Moroccan Arab immigrants savaged a Jewish section of the city reminiscent of Kristallnacht. The author remarked, "Everybody knew that what happens in France can happen in Belgium as well, because both countries have large populations of Jews and larger populations of Arabs."

Destruction from the inside "Seeking Islamic law: Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.

The problem here, one they may actually destroy this country, is that the PC in the USA always try to make this into a "freedom of religion" issue. IT IS NOT. Islam is NOT a religion, it is a political movement with a religious component. BIG difference, in that nearly all mainstream religions can and do often get along with each other, whereas political movements seek control. Make NO mistake...the ultimate goal is a Sharia planet. Is that REALLY what you want to live in? But don't believe me, look up the levels of violence in Europe and compare them to the levels of Muslims. You will see that time, after time, after time again, once Muslims reach 10-15% here comes the violence, riots, and destruction.

The political movement known as Islam uses your beliefs against you. They believe in freedom of speech for the spread of Islam but will issue death threats and Fatwas upon all those that criticize or even draw a cartoon of Mohammad. They are all for freedom of religion when it comes to spreading Islam but try standing on a street corner preaching the bible in Saudi Arabia and see how long you last.

And finally I hate to Godwin, but frankly there is no more apt comparison, the PC that scream religion of peace remind me of nothing less than the old Soviet "useful idiots" or those that sought appeasement with Hitler. Just as then there is NO appeasement, because their ultimate political goals and the freedoms you enjoy or totally incompatible. But don't worry, you don't have to take my word for it. Look up "Sharia court" and France, Britain, or Germany. They have already set up a "shadow court" system based on Sharia there, and those three will be the first to fall, most likely France first. When it does take a long good hard look and decide for yourself: Is that how I want our country to be? Because I sure as fuck don't. I have NO PROBLEM with those that come here legally and try to integrate into our society, but they do not. They simply want to force their political values upon the world. Remember political system and NOT religion, no different than totalitarianism or fascism.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Nadaka]

What, you want me to provide a exhaustive list of the bad things about the second iraq war? That would take days at least.

Like I said, we should have taken out Saddam at the end of the first war. If we had done that, there would have nothing good about the second war (and no way that I can see to falsify justification for a second invasion).

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[moeinvt]

"...a Jamaican woman who moved to the UK in the 50s as was encouraged under the Commonwealth."

I don't know the history there, but this whole idea of forcing/incentivizing people with vastly different cultural and religious practices to co-mingle for some theoretical and unsubstantiated "benefit" sure seems to be the source of a lot of tension. WTF was the Commonwealth thinking?

"If you pre-judge a person based upon their perceived group ..."

It wouldn't be logical to "condemn" 100% of the members of a particular group based on a bit of anecdotal evidence, but you can't expect people NOT to make inferences based on attributes that signify membership in a particular group.

"You would be pretty miffed if I tarred you with that brush though wouldn't you?"

If I visited the UK, or another foreign country, I'd think it was "natural" for the people to make inferences about me based on the behavior of U.S. tourists and on whatever U.S. media they had been exposed to. In fact, I find it rather fun to pleasantly surprise people.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[carp3_noct3m]

Translation: The Americans who are Neoconservatives, a political philosophy which supports using modern American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries, and are also Facists, which advocates an authoritarian nationalist political ideology that seeks to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy, are at it again... Put that way, it really isn't that irrational, as those people in particular WERE the driving force for the invasions. **USMC Iraq Combat vet**

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Huh? Anyone who isn't a bigot or an islamophobe wouldn't have hurt feelings in the first place.

...

Really? Because I have yet to see a *reason* for objecting to this mosque/community center, save to protect the feelings of a few bigots. And that's no reason at all.

I guess that's the big disconnect. I would call you exceedingly naieve, though, for suggesting that everyone is in such impeccable control of their emotions that they don't feel uncomfortable at all in such a situation.

It really doesn't take bigotry (vis a vis intolerance); a certain amount of ignorance can do, or some misinformation, and they can grow to fear or worry about a people.

This is the point: the difference between intolerance and fear/worry/discomfort. You can tolerate something, willingly or not, and also be afraid of it. If you do that, though, especially unwillingly, it can eat away at you your entire life. You can look at a friend who lost someone everyday, and be perfectly willing to forgive the people involved, but you are reminded every day that you don't know enough to tell bad people from good, because their culture is foreign. You can acknowledge in your head and in your heart that everyone, or virtually everyone you meet will be a good person, but you can still fear that one in a million.

None of which is to say that the people that think that way don't need to be dealt with. However, the problems that cause the condition are everywhere--poor education, limited life experience, a depressive worldview, fear mongering in the media, etc. Until the causes are dealt with--and I do believe they should be--dealing harshly with the people involved, especially if they're not doing anything, is cruel.

I say cruel--but even if it's necessary, or the right thing to do, it's still cruel. Necessary and cruel do hold hands sometimes. That's why the intentions of the people making the mosque are important; if they're going to return that fear (which is understandable) with more fear or hatred (which is also understandable, frankly), they shouldn't put it somewhere knowing it could happen. If they're going to be very open and kind, and try to slowly dispel those shadows in peoples' hearts, that's different.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[c6gunner]

Either you were drunk when you read my comment, or you really have some serious reading-comprehension problems.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Antisyzygy]

Its supposition based on how Muslims from various parts of the world get all worked up over stupid shit. Look how many Muslims protested around the world over 50 people threatening to burn Korans. This is people protesting something happening over 5000 miles away to a book in such wide print that it doesn't put a dent on the numbers of Korans in existence. Not to mention its not even something happening two blocks from their house. I am getting tired of people claiming tolerance when they are so intolerant. I do not believe every Muslim is like this, but a significant portion of them are. Suppose I decided to build a shrine to "The Holy Warriors of the United States Armed Forces". If I built it here in the US, some people would be upset, some people would laugh at me. No-one would tell me I couldn't build it if I chose an appropriate location and followed city ordinances. If I built it pretty much ANYWHERE in the Middle East I would have a shitload of Muslims pissed off at me for doing so and I would probably wind up dead. So, even though in principal I agree that there is no reason a Mosque should not be built near Ground Zero, I also don't like hypocritical crap that people spout out. In particular, people seem to think you have to be more tolerant of Islam "just because" when its as ridiculous as any other religion in my book. Why should it get special treatment?

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Antisyzygy]

And furthermore ... My comment was meant to illustrate the fact that Muslims would get just as worked up if the situation was reversed.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Abcd1234]

My comment was meant to illustrate the fact that Muslims would get just as worked up if the situation was reversed.

"Mooooom, he hit me first!"

Please. Quit acting like a fucking child. Seriously.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Abcd1234]

It really doesn't take bigotry (vis a vis intolerance); a certain amount of ignorance can do, or some misinformation, and they can grow to fear or worry about a people.

Agreed, ignorance can turn into bigotry. But it's still bigotry, and the solution isn't to bow to the wishes of the bigots; to coddle them and treat them as if their beliefs are valid. Tt's to carry on, while educating those interested in learning, and disregarding those who would prefer to live in ignorance.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Abcd1234]

Alright, you provide an example where you see more than just a single troll referring to all Christians, everywhere, as "right wing, fascist, racist rednecks", and I'll concede the point. Until then, I'm going to assume you're just another Christian with a persecution complex (note, I'm not saying all Christians have persecution complexes, just some of them... you know, just for the record, I wouldn't want you to think I was persecuting all Christians, though I could see how you might feel that way, what with your persecution complex and all).

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Americano]

http://www.slashdot.org./

Go forth and read, young man. You can concede the point any time you'd like.

Funny thing is, I'm not even Christian. Kinda hard to be a Christian with a persecution complex when you're not much of a believer in any organized religion, wouldn't you say?

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[hairyfeet]

How typical of a sad and pathetic liberal. Do you depute a SINGLE link? No, Anything I have said or presented? No? You can only call names like a frightened schoolboy, clinging to your views as they fail. How truly fucking sad that my former party, the party of Jefferson, has come down to this. First we lost the republicans to the neo cons, now the democrats to the libtards. How truly fucking sad.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[O('_')O_Bush]

"What, you want me to provide a exhaustive list of the bad things about the second iraq war? That would take days at least."

No, I just want you to realize the difference between "I wish that baddie wasn't in power." and "We're king of the world by divine providence so we'll invade whatever countries we don't like."

One is a shared sentiment, the other is our new international policy and a sign of our downfall as we break apart some of the ideas that have allowed us to progress towards a world government.

"Like I said, we should have taken out Saddam at the end of the first war."

That would have been nice. I don't disagree.

"If we had done that, there would have nothing good about the second war"

Just wanted to point out that taking Saddam wasn't a victory for us. It was a victory for martyrdom in the minds of anti-zionists (see the rise in insurgency in the past few years) and for the Iraqi people that were oppressed under his rule.

Anywho, we can continue this discussion if you want. I'm not trying to be hostile, just trying to point out the subtle differences that separate the global view of this incident from the national view.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Custard Horse]

I think you will find that the presence of racism clouds the judgement and identifies muslims by colour rather than religion. I believe this is the rationale behind debunking proposed 'racial profiling' at passport control as a brown man with a beard is apparently more of a risk than a white man who gives no appearance of being a muslim.

You see, the beauty of racism is that it is only skin-deep.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yes, it does not make it ground zero. As I said, the term "ground zero" has a very specific meaning which the area where this mosque/community center is being built does not meet.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[lusiphur69]

Legitimate arguments?

When I see one I might deign to respond. Still this is all piss and vinegar, national pride and bigotry. Some people really think Islam is the enemy, instead of fundamentalists. It would behoove you to be more honest in your comments, as I am certain you are aware of this.

"you should know that that mosque WILL be a symbol of how *we* "backed down" and gave in to appease what the Imam wanted"

Actually, it would be a symbol that America will not compromise its values or Constitution to prevent a mosque being built at that location, cementing the differences between America ('land of the free') vs. Saudi Arabia ('not so much')

Stopping the mosque from being built at that location has nothing to do with 'backing down' - which is a pretty juvenile thing to worry about - it would be contrary to American law to try to stop it to appease the less-educated or worldly among you.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[hairyfeet]

Again with the insults. I provided links showing the link between Muslims and violence. Did you dispute them? NO. I provided links showing that of the current 24 wars happening around the planet 22 involve Muslims on either or BOTH sides of the conflict and did you dispute that? NOPE. Instead you hide behind the pathetic AC banner and insult. If your ideology is a complete failure, or you simply have NO WAY of disputing anything from the links I provided, then have the balls to admit it. But blindly believing in a philosophy without even a shred of evidence to back it up is what we call "drinking the Koolaid" and I think I have provably demonstrated that those PC liberals here that scream "Islam is a religion of peace!" are nothing but the latest version of Stalin's useful idiots.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[lusiphur69]

But he also stood up to the people saying "let's just nuke the entire middle east back to the stone age," and drew a clear distinction between "the people who did this" and "muslims."

That's a pretty low bar to set.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[Americano]

And what would you consider an appropriately high bar, then?

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[interkin3tic]

That link you provided didn't show what you implied it showed. The title included the phrase "mosque at ground zero" but the article itself was little more than a quote by the organizer who said it was to be a multifaith memorial.

That's not a mosque.

Re:"Anti-US" Hacker?

[meatron]

"We should have done it the first time." Maybe you shouldn't have installed him as a dictator in the first place. Halabja and all other atrocities were not a problem, you kept on arming the guy. Until his fuse blew and invaded Kuwait, that was a no-no. Why? Oil.

Profiteering

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy is just another Spam king Profiteering. He is trying to spin a political message on top of the spam but that's about it.

PREPARE FOR FUNDING!

[phantomcircuit]

Seriously a bunch of consultants are about to become filthy rich.

If his plan was to slowly bleed the US to death with enormous security consulting fees, I suspect his plan will be a success.

Re:PREPARE FOR FUNDING!

[AnonymousClown]

Seriously a bunch of consultants are about to become filthy rich.

If his plan was to slowly bleed the US to death with enormous security consulting fees, I suspect his plan will be a success.

Cool. Where do I $ign up?

No need to sign up - hit the pavement.

You do the marketing and then farm out the tech work to India - that's how it's done these days. Although, people are starting to figure out that they can just cut out the American salesman and go directly to India and save all the American overhead and commissions that just pay for the fancy suits, Exlax watches, and huge CEO salaries.

Re:PREPARE FOR FUNDING!

[box4831]

ExLax watches? Is that so you know exactly when you shit yourself?

Re:PREPARE FOR FUNDING!

[BrettJB]

No need to sign up - hit the pavement.

You do the marketing and then farm out the tech work to India - that's how it's done these days. Although, people are starting to figure out that they can just cut out the American salesman and go directly to India and save all the American overhead and commissions that just pay for the fancy suits, Exlax watches, and huge CEO salaries.

Exlax watches? Remind me to never ask you what time it is...

Not negative?

[Alwin Henseler]

Two points:

1. Writing malware has 0 effect at large, until it's put out into the wild. Once out, damage is done & cannot ever be undone. Yes it might help to increase OS security over time, yes it'll keep anti-virus companies in business, but it's always a net negative for society. Prevention & cleanup takes time. Time that will not be spent on more useful things.
2. What that malware will do over time & for what other purposes it might be used, will have little (if anything) to do with your original intentions. It's a vehicle, and if it works, others (with a different agenda) will ride that vehicle too.

Re:Not negative?

[nedlohs]

Not necessarily. Active malware tends to get the software producer to fix the bug faster. Hence less damaging malware now, might see the issue fixed before more damaging malware is released - that would be a net positive for society.

Of course you can never know, all you know is the damage done by the malware that was released.

Re:Not negative?

[null8]

I think it will increase OS security and create a lot of jobs in this sector. If you think this jobs are redundant, think about lawyers. The ignorant will suffer, and if they learn their lesson, they will be much better prepared for the new threat and take security more seriously. I think that computer malware is more useful than many think it is. Just remember the blaster worm. It made actually normal people think about security and the big losers were the ones who used windows in places it shouldn't have ever been.

Re:Not negative?

[commodore64_love]

>>>1. Once out, damage is done & cannot ever be undone.
>>>2. It's a vehicle, and if it works, others (with a different agenda) will ride that vehicle too.

3. Even if a virus is completely harmless, it can still cause unintended consequences. For example the early Commodore Amiga viruses were just simple things that said, "Hello I am Hacker XYZ." Unfortunately this friendly hacker forgot that his virus would overwrite boot sectors on copy-protected video games and commercial software, thereby making them unusable.

Re:Not negative?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is still the broken window fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

However, in this case you are adding in a 'crack' in the corner of the window and it may have caused some water damage in the future.

So instead of buying a blob of caulk and putting it in the corner and replacing the window when he can. He needs to replace the whole window right now because some punk smashed it.

Take example of the Sony PS3. Recently hacked to let people run linux again. Sony rushed out a patch to cover that hack. They could have used that manpower to be making a new feature. Instead it looks like from the outside (and someone who doesnt bother hacking his ps3) it was an 'all hands on deck' sort of feature push. Then all of the wasted time of millions of PS3s needing to be updated. Does that sound like 'harmless' hacking? No it caused a company to spend millions then millions more of peoples time and electricity. But by GOD my ps3 is more secure now!

Re:Not negative?

[nedlohs]

No it's not the broken window fallacy. Do you just post random crap in random places.

If it is you'll be able to point to part which is about the economy being improved by the busy work of repairing the damage. But you can't because it wasn't there and because you are fucking retarded.

Re:Not negative?

[Anonymous Coward]

Awww did I say something you didnt like?

Not necessarily. Active malware tends to get the software producer to fix the bug faster. Hence less damaging malware now, might see the issue fixed before more damaging malware is released - that would be a net positive for society.

Of course you can never know, all you know is the damage done by the malware that was released.

Sorry I didnt quote you.

You suppose that by diverting attention from new thing being worked on right. So we can fix things that are now broken and being exploited is not wasting money?

Some douche bag shows up and finds a hole in the system (and you can try and try and make the system better but you will never find them all). So now thousands of people and millions of dollars are spent fixing something *right now*. Instead of getting rolled up into proper testing and when the right people can look at it.

Using my PS3 example show me how I am better off now? I spent 20-30 mins updating it at a cost to my time as I could not use the online functionality until I did so. SONY spent millions of dollars patching the hole. The fallacy part is that my time is better spent sitting around for an update. Also the millions that SONY spent is better spent on patching this.

Putting it in 'broken window' terms and virus/Trojan terms it is like saying 'see now the guy is better off now he has double paned windows with glazing so he will now save money'. Maybe he was going to do that in the future maybe not. But see we got it done faster and the world is a better place. Which is almost exactly what you said. And like I said BROKEN WINDOW FALLACY

But I 'just post random crap in random places'. What do I know I only majored in economics and fucking retarded...

You sir are a troll.

Re:Not negative?

[nedlohs]

The broken window fallacy is that a broken window causes the owner to buy a new window which employs the window maker, who then buys something else, and so and so on. Resulting in a boost to the economy. It's an obvious fallacy.

My claim was nothing to do with that at all, here's the example for the morons:

1. Dr Evil has found a bug in Windows and has his team of hackers writing an exploit which he will use to blow up the power grid in North America.
2. Joe the Crappy Hacker also finds said bug and tells Microsoft
3. Microsoft does nothing.
4. Dr Evil pulls the switch and Americans can't watch TV for an evening.

Compared with:
1. Dr Evil has found ;a bug in Windows and has his team of hackers writing an exploit which he will use to blow up the power grid in North America.
2. Joe the Crappy Hacker also find said bug and writes some malware that displays a political message and distributes itself via email.
3. Microsoft rushes to fix the problem and releases an emergency patch.
4. Dr Evil pulls the switch and nothing happens because the exploit was fixed.

The second situation has less negative consequences for society, and hence the malware was positive for society.

Yes I don't think it's a particularly likely, in fact I don't think it will ever occur. It is however, a possible situation (well the bug getting fixed before a more damaging exploit part, not the Dr Evil part).

But even if you disagree with that it still isn't a broken window fallacy, because it isn't making claims about economic benefit of any activity at all.

If you majored in economics then I suggest asking for refund. Then again I guess if you only have a hammer then the whole world looks like a nail.

Re:Not negative?

[bzipitidoo]

Now, now.

A better expression is "shoot the messenger". Whatever message an author purports to be sending, malware that worked tells us that we have yet another hole in our computer systems. These can be and are permanently cured. I prefer learnings of these problems sooner rather than later. The damage is usually less severe that way. Best of all would be "nipping it in the bud", that is, changing design and programming methodologies that lead to the flaws. For instance, the infamous C library function gets() should never be used for user input. C code is notorious for buffer overrun sorts of exploits, as in the interests of performance no checking of any sort is done. One of the philosophies of C is trust in programmers. If someone's code does something improper such as going out of bounds on an array, the thinking was that the programmer has a good reason for it, and so it shouldn't be prevented by being overzealous with performance sapping checking. That kind of thinking may seem quaint and naive today. But it's taken us a long time to get around to certain measures to deal with these problems. Now we have various protections at various levels. A modern OS and computer with virtual memory will kill a process that tries to access memory it wasn't assigned. Separation between code and data is enforced. This "no execute bit" is finally making its way into PC architecture. All these measures make our systems more robust, and we ought to thank those who discovered and showed us that these problems existed, and are significant. Even if the manner of the showing caused damage, particularly when that's the only way to draw proper attention to a problem. And it depends on the damage. Damage to computer systems is routinely blown out of proportion. People are still too afraid of "1337 hax0rs", and react with inappropriate harshness, which often backfires. For instance, who wants a system admin position with the city of San Francisco? If I was willing, it would only be for extra pay for the extra risks.

9/11 on the other hand is excessive. Even so, 9/11 emphatically demonstrated several weak points. Extremely tall buildings aren't a good, practical idea. We knew that, but we keep building them anyway. All of the tallest buildings in the world are vanities, built to show off engineering prowess and wealth rather than set good examples of how best to use resources. Invariably, the same amount of space could have been built for far less money with several shorter buildings, rather than one skyscraper. And the practice of appeasing hijackers sometimes isn't the best way to handle a hijacking, as many of us had suspected. Never again will passengers not oppose hijackers trying to take over the piloting of a plane. And as for the politics, one of the objectives was to prod the West into overreacting, in totally unrealistic hopes this would provoke the entire Islamic world to unite in opposition. And also to provoke us into taking excessive security measures, which has, sadly, been a little too successful though sanity is gradually returning. Nail clippers are once again allowed on planes. The West has mostly restrained itself with Iraq being the worst mistake. But even if the West had done a great deal more, it's doubtful the Islamic world would or could organize itself regardless.

When it can't be cured, only treated, and the message is already well known and doesn't bear repeating, then it's vandalism at the least. Yes, windows are breakable. Yes, buildings can be destroyed. Only if we are sure should we resort to branding the messengers as criminals and seek to deter them through punitive action as well as preventative. For instance, spam is a huge problem, and no doubt many people would like to execute spammers, but is it really incurable? Or more like, are the cures worse than the disease? I don't think we've exhausted all the technical and systemic options available that may be able to prevent this problem.

Worm smash!

[Issarlk]

"I could smash all those infected but I wouldn't..."

I personnaly find it _amazing_ that none of the worm writer so far used them to destroy the computers. Really, that must be tempting, isn't it? Hundred of thousands of computer that you wipe with the push of a button.

Re:Worm smash!

[Twisted Willie]

If you have control over that many computers, there are far more interesting/lucrative things you can do than just wiping them all.

Re:Worm smash!

[Zironic]

For one the worm wouldn't spread very far if you did that, for another you'd get the international police after you for gargantuan damage penalties that you wouldn't be able to pay of in your entire life.

Re:Worm smash!

[bsDaemon]

Yeah, but then you lose your spam net. He may not be a "negative person," but his positive attitude creating 10% of all spam on the net over a period of time isn't exactly a charitable gesture. But then, I think spammers are worse than terrorists.

Re:Worm smash!

[imakemusic]

But then you wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of computers to play and that would be no fun/not profitable.

Re:Worm smash!

[jeffmeden]

Those looking at this from a long term perspective wish he would smash them already! Seriously, nothing sends a message of "you better learn how to use your f****** computer" like waking up one day, turning it on, and finding it completely wiped of everything. I had that experience when I was about 13, and have been extremely vigilant against malware (and malware-free) ever since. As it is, all those computers are spewing spam and infections out and the operator will probably never know.

Re:Worm smash!

[commodore64_love]

>>>nothing sends a message [than] finding it completely wiped of everything.

Yep. Likewise we should sabotage people's tires so they go "pop" after they pass 55mph, and leave them stranded along the highway. Nothing teaches a person how to change his own tire (and remember to inflate the spare) faster than a broken down car.

/end sarcasm

Stop being a dick. WANTING people to have their computer wiped and precious data lost makes you no better than a grumpy old man ("get off my lawn you stupid brats!"). Besides most of them are running Microsoft antivirus software by default. If that fails, it's not the person's fault.

Re:Worm smash!

[TheRaven64]

For one the worm wouldn't spread very far if you did that,

It only takes a few days to propagate around the Internet. The kill can be time-delayed to occur a month after release and it will cause significant damage. for another you'd get the international police after you for gargantuan damage penalties that you wouldn't be able to pay of in your entire life.

If they can find you, you'll be in prison anyway, so not much of a disincentive.

Re:Worm smash!

[wvmarle]

I wonder about this 10%-of-all-spam claim. I haven't seen this worm. I haven't seen any increase in spams that I receive over the last few days.

And I should have seen a serious increase as this worm spreads through Outlook, using proper smtp servers, which will pass through my greylisting (>90% of spam is stopped that way already). And as I'm doing business with dozens of companies all over the world, and possibly hundreds have my e-mail address in some address book or so, it's surprising to simply not receive it.

Just looking through my spam folder again and no surprises there... about half Nigerian scams and related, about half other stuff.

Re:Worm smash!

[couchslug]

I find it unfortunate. That's the ONLY thing which will force lusers and PHBs to take security seriously because, unlike merely parasitic malware, a nuked system isn't fun to play with any more. A fish can still swim with a lamprey attached.

FFS start breaking shit so we build more immunity.

Re:Worm smash!

[wvmarle]

Botnet creators sell to the highest bidders. They normally sell their services, but I bet if the price is right they will sell the master keys (passwords, update codes, whatever) too.

What is an enemy organisation or country stopping from trying to buy such keys? How about the US and China would manage to start a war (or slightly less unlikely China and Japan), then one of them would track down the creators of say Storm or Conficker or whatever is today's major botnet, and buy the master keys for maybe half a billion dollars. Then they have access to maybe millions of pre-compromised computers. With botnet software that can take all kinds of commands, including complete updates of itself - when you have those keys getting those computers to wipe themselves becomes trivial.

At this moment there may be no-one really interested in wiping computers; no-one wanting to put that much effort in it as it doesn't bring any advantage for the attacher.

But if you are in a state of war - this can really cripple your enemy. You don't need to kill their military computers, if you kill enough computers in general businesses the whole economy comes to a halt. Shipping companies can not plan their shipments. Supermarkets run out of stock because shipments stop coming in on time. People can't eat because there is no food for sale. Telemarketing companies lose their databases, and have no way to store info gained from their cold calls, and as a result have to stop this. Car manufactures can not produce or sell cars because they do not get the stocks (factory office down), and they can not book sales (dealers down), let alone get finished cars to the dealer (they can't access their order database, nor book trucks to get those cars out).

There are are currently no big wars going on - big as in big countries against each other. Not those guerrilla wars the US is trying to fight, guerrillas are typically not rich and don't care to take out the country, just to kick the enemy soldiers off their turf. This is over the heads of Al-Quaeda et. al., they don't have this kind of money (otherwise they would have done so already I'm sure). But in case of a more traditional war... I'm really wondering what this kind of botnets would be used for.

Re:Worm smash!

[phillymjs]

Besides most of them are running Microsoft antivirus software by default.

[citation needed]

I'd be more inclined to think that most of them are running [the possibly expired trial version of] whatever came preloaded on their machine when they bought it, which most certainly would NOT be Microsoft Security Essentials, lest the antivirus vendors go crying monopoly.

In any case, antivirus software did not help. I know of at least one large company with very well locked down machines and a very well locked down network, and they still got their ass kicked by this thing.

~Philly

Re:Worm smash!

[commodore64_love]

Good point. When I bought my Win7 machine it had MS Security enabled by default, but my brother's had stupid McAfee with an annoying opup window asking for money.

Re:Worm smash!

[mlts]

And guess what the lusers will do? They will beg Congress for more laws to "protect" them from the evil bogeyman, or put the blame on Microsoft for having an "insecure" OS. In reality, the only OSes can protect against the Dancing Bunnies security issue are closed and locked operating systems.

Ultimately, due to Joe Sixpack and Trojans that the future of desktop operating systems eventually will look like ChromeOS or iOS. No root or administrative access anywhere to be found (even for clued users), perhaps some rudimentary multi-user capability, but there will be no "#" prompt to be found anywhere. Development machines will either be special machines that are unlocked, or will run a hypervisor. You won't find a true root/Administrator level access anywhere, except enterprise level servers. Machines will enforce this by not booting from OS media unless the OS image is signed, and the OS volumes (C: for Windows, / and /usr) for UNIX will be encrypted, unlocked by the TPM on boot.

Re:Worm smash!

[SheeEttin]

I personnaly find it _amazing_ that none of the worm writer so far used them to destroy the computers. Really, that must be tempting, isn't it? Hundred of thousands of computer that you wipe with the push of a button.

Well, what do you know... XKCD covered this just this morning.

After the fact rationalization

[antifoidulus]

If his payload was something *OTHER* than spam I might be more inclined to believe him, but delivering spam to people usually also involves delivering money to his bank account. He is just looking for a nobler purpose to game some "cred" I guess, and opposing the Iraq war in the cracker community is 99% of the time a pretty safe bet.

This guy sounds like he failed at his aim

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy sounds like a drunk I saw getting arrested at a club recently. He tried to throw a punch at a bartender, got tackled by club security, then started screaming that he deliberately didn't hit hard or wasn't trying to aim accurately as he was being held down for the local police to haul him off.

This worm writer was too incompetent to actually have done more damage. I'm sure he was trying to, but because IT people and AV makers reacted to it in a fairly short amount of time, he is just excusing it as he didn't hit hard enough.

And what did this get mr "Iraq Resistance"? Nothing. This guy is nothing more than a glorified script kiddie that would have gotten kickbanned from any meaningful IRC channel the second he typed in his first line of text.

Maybe he should go back to spamming random message boards with anti-US slogans and calling himself an uber haxx0r because he can manually type in a CAPTCHA.

bad title tag

[kj_kabaje]

Holy bad title--or bad reading on my part. Really is the hacker against the US? Or hacking the US (as in government and business interests)?

Re:bad title tag

[Akoman]

It's just a rip from the article, which is terribly written and fails to provide a lot of context. My initial opinion was this was a stitch up and the hacker was just against the war and people were stretching connections and definitions to make them sound like a security threat. This ComputerWorld article is way better at providing the details that link this worm to previous efforts by a Libyan hacker to create a politically motivated hacker group. To describe these guys as anti-US would be, I think, a simplification of the motivation of these groups. Jihadists (and here I also probably simplify) may be prepared to attack the States, but the motivation is not simply anti-US. I found this article on Eurozine to be really interesting on breaking down their attitudes.

Famous Last Words...

[geekmux]

"He said he had not expected the worm to spread as broadly as it had..."

Gee, we've never heard that one before...

At one point it accounted for 10% of the world's spam, but "I'm not negative person!"

Yeah, I guess he's right. There's a difference between a "negative" person and an idiot.

Re:Just another victim

[KiltedKnight]

I'm always amazed at how so many people can so easily fall for something that was at best a third grade attempt. Several of my coworkers and I were unhappy, to say the least, because we all took one look at the email and said that a blind man should've been able to pick up on this. And then someone chimed in with probably what was the best comment about why this happened. He suggested that it's been many years since we've seen this kind of attack go this rampant so everyone's guard was let down such that they didn't believe these attacks happened any more.

Why is the title not worded "Windows worm"?

[couchslug]

Certainly any such story on /. should point out the affected operating systems...

Re:Why is the title not worded "Windows worm"?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet MS *STILL* hides the file extensions be default.
I have yet to see a situation where that didn't screw up users.

More gold from the brilliant thinkers that brought you AutoRun (at least they fixed that).

Re:Why is the title not worded "Windows worm"?

[bartwol]

Certainly any such story on /. should point out the affected operating systems...

...and the hacker's religion, too (especially if he's a Muslim).

Re:Why is the title not worded "Windows worm"?

[DarkEmpath]

Because it's not a Windows worm? It's an Outlook worm. MS Office is on more than just Windows.

"I'm not a negative person"

[Tomsk70]

I'm not a burglar either - I was just breaking into your house and messing it up to show you how unsecure the locks are.

Anti-war is not "Anti-US"

[wealthychef]

Just because the worm author makes statements agains the US war in Iraq and calls himself "Iraqi resistance" does not mean he is anti-US. I too am agains the war in Iraq. Is it possible to disagree with US foreign policy and not be accused of being a traitor? Yes, I know he crossed a line making a (fairly harmless) worm, but this guy sounds as much aligned with US interests as most beer-swilling, harley-riding, pit bull owning flag wavers.

Re:Anti-war is not "Anti-US"

[Shotgun]

Is it possible to disagree with US foreign policy and not be accused of being a traitor?

No. Ron Paul suggested we bring our troops home from foreign bases and let those countries pay for their own defenses. He was derided and laughed at for the very suggestion.

Re:Anti-war is not "Anti-US"

[lwsimon]

Not by all of us. I think Paul wants to do things far too quickly, but I generally agree with his desired state.

Re:Best Sig Ever

[geekmux]

You have the best sig I've seen on here!

Yeah, it came to me one day after seeing the effects of decades of corruption. I almost hate to have it, but it's true in far too many ways.

Time to grow up

[Citizen of Earth]

I wish these pussies would stop fooling around. They need to make their worms destroy all data on every computer they touch. This is the only way that anyone will ever take security seriously, including Microsoft.

Politics much?

[DesScorp]

I'm not sure how he thinks a virus is going to convince the super patriotic Luddites who support the war that their beliefs are totally wrong.

Luddites? It's an email worm, not a "newspaper virus". You're insulting these people by calling them something they're not because you don't agree with their politics.This is transmitted using the Internet. Luddites? Really?