Zimbabwe Gov't Websites Hit By Pro-WikiLeaks DDoS Attack

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Zimbabwe Gov't Websites Hit By Pro-WikiLeaks DDoS Attack

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday January 1, 2011 @03:37AM from the anonymous-abroad dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Pro-WikiLeaks hacktivists have struck a blow against the-powers-that-be in Zimbabwe, bringing down three government websites through distributed denial-of-service attacks. The attacks appear to be in support of newspapers who published secret cables in the ongoing WikiLeaks saga, to the annoyance of the country's leadership. Grace Mugabe, wife of Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe, was recently reported to be suing a newspaper for $15 million after it published a WikiLeaks cable that claimed she has benefited from illegal diamond trading. The Zimbabwe government's online portal at www.gta.gov.zw and the official ZANU-PF website continue to be offline, and the Finance Ministry's website now displays a message saying it is under maintenance."

81 of 115 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hahaha by koreaman · 2011-01-01 03:39 · Score: 1

I love how Anonymous thinks they are effecting social change by "annoying" Zimbabwe's leaders. These 4channers will get bored, the website will go back up, and life will go on as usual in Zimbabwe.

--
Le français vous intéresse?
1. Re:Hahaha by Charliemopps · 2011-01-01 04:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Anything done that "annoys" Zimbabwe's leaders is well worth the effort in my opinion.
2. Re:Hahaha by Jeremy+Erwin · 2011-01-01 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  If various sites associated with Zanu-PF, such as the Herald could be hacked to republish the allegedly libelous cable:
  
  2. (C) On November 6, poloff met with Andrew Cranswick, the
  CEO of African Consolidated Resources (ACR), the
  publicly-traded British firm that had its Chiadzwa diamond
  claim in the Marange district of Manicaland seized by the
  government parastatal Minerals Marketing Corporation of
  Zimbabwe (MMCZ) in 2006 (reftel). According to Cranswick,
  there is a small group of high-ranking Zimbabwean officials
  who have been extracting tremendous diamond profits from
  Chiadzwa. Cranswick said that RBZ Governor Gideon Gono,
  Grace Mugabe, wife of President Robert Mugabe, Vice President
  Joyce Mujuru, Mines and Mining Development Minister Amos
  Midzi, General Constantine Chiwenga and wife Jocelyn, CIO
  Director Happyton Bonyongwe, Manicaland Governor Chris
  Mushowe, and several white Zimbabweans, including Ken Sharpe,
  Greg Scott, and Hendrik O,Neill, are all involved in the
  Marange diamond trade.
  source, then some good might come out of this. But DDOS is such a blunt instrument.
3. Re:Hahaha by Concerned+Onlooker · 2011-01-01 05:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I almost agree with you. However, when you "annoy" someone using illegal/unethical means you kind of lose the high ground. Just because it is a "good" cause doesn't mean one should abandon one's principles. Just look at the Bush administration and torture.
  Besides, it is a tactic that is non-lasting. Real change takes real work and time. But I think most people would rather wait until the situation is out of control and then take drastic action rather than do the hard day-to-day work of keeping freedoms alive.
  
  --
  http://www.rootstrikers.org/
4. Re:Hahaha by nyatty · 2011-01-01 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  I think its a simple type of attack and exposes weak security of Zimbabwe.
  
  --
  me
5. Re:Hahaha by dasdrewid · 2011-01-01 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, I never would have read about the Grace Mugabe's involvement in illegal diamond trading had Anonymous not DDoSed the various Zimbabwe government sites and gotten in the news (well, /.) for it. The DDoS is not long-lasting, but the information spread because of the uproar is. I'm still unsure how I feel about Anonymous and the DDoS attacks, but I know exactly how I feel about diamond trading (frankly, I'm not a fan of the legal stuff, either...) and now I know better to whom to apply those feelings.
  
  --
  No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
6. Re:Hahaha by BlogTroller · 2011-01-01 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  If you can call not withstanding a DDOS attack from an angry mob of 15 year olds weak security, i don't know. It's like saying a bank has weak security because the glass windows in the entrance break when people are throwing stones at them form the street.
7. Re:Hahaha by RichiH · 2011-01-02 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  > Anything done that "annoys" Zimbabwe's leaders is well worth the effort in my opinion.
  Yes, especially if you want to give Mugabe _more_ reasons to kick out the guy who won but wasn't allowed to win. The alliance over there is brittle enough, handing Mugabe more "proof" that the other side is evil is beyond stupid and will most likely help cost real people their lives. As in boom, dead. Way to go.
I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars by sethstorm · 2011-01-01 03:44 · Score: 2, Funny

Grace Mugabe, wife of Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe, was recently reported to be suing a newspaper for $15 million
Which by the time it gets over with, will be worth a few cents if in the Zimbabwe currency.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
1. Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars by Opportunist · 2011-01-01 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  That why she sues in Dollars. With every nanosecond they keep the trial hanging, the sum goes up and up in their local currency.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars by donutface · 2011-01-01 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  The Zimbabwean dollar officially died over a year ago. They all use USD/EUR now
3. Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars by Dogtanian · 2011-01-01 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  That why she sues in Dollars. With every nanosecond they keep the trial hanging, the sum goes up and up in their local currency.
  Not if she was suing in Zimbabwean Dollars, dumbass. And how do you know she *was* suing in (non-local) "Dollars" anyway?
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
4. Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars by the+linux+geek · 2011-01-01 04:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not *quite* dead, just comatose. If I recall, they said they'd bring it back if economic growth gets to a certain point, and until then would only use foreign currency to minimize inflation.
5. Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars by donutface · 2011-01-01 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the information I thought otherwise. Theyre pretty expensive on Ebay considering their actual value. When I ordered 100 trillion zim dollars for 5 euro, I was convinced it was fake. But no the country is just in so much crap that they can't even watermark their newer currency.
6. Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars by hedwards · 2011-01-01 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  It was a bit of a laugh before they discontinued it. It was illegal to take the currency out of the country.
  
  Probably one of the most pointless laws ever created. Sure you could take the currency out of the country, but by the time you got back it would be worth a few cents on the million of what it was when you left. Even for short periods of time you were better off just giving it away at the airport as it wasn't going to be worth anything the next time you came back.
7. Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars by thaig · 2011-01-01 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  Because Zimbabwe is "dollarised" already - we use the US dollar because we couldn't control our own currency. I have a 500 billion Zim dollar note that is more valuable as toilet paper. That's why it's obvious that it is USD 15 million,.
  
  --
  This is all just my personal opinion.
8. Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars by l33t+gambler · 2011-01-03 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Don't use the f word it is the same thing. Be courteous and respectful and they will be too :)
  
  --
  Teasing the nobles, and rightfully so!
$15,0000,000 by bsDaemon · 2011-01-01 03:49 · Score: 1

So, she's suing the paper for an amount that's a little over 0.36% of the countries GDP, which, by the way, works out to about $100 per capita in 2009 dollars, according to the CIA World Fact Book. The Mugabes are a pair of the most despicable people on the planet and why they're allowed to stay in charge, probably out of some fear of removing them looking like "white colonial oppression," is shameful.
1. Re:$15,0000,000 by peragrin · 2011-01-01 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  When the USA charges in to change a government people scream and shout and say the the USA is imperliaistic and being mean. When the USA doesn't invade they are looked at with disdain for not helping out those who need it.
  You can't have it both ways, however no matter what the USA does it is wrong.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
2. Re:$15,0000,000 by Grygus · 2011-01-01 04:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  When the USA charges in to change a government people scream and shout and say the the USA is imperliaistic and being mean. When the USA doesn't invade they are looked at with disdain for not helping out those who need it.
  You can't have it both ways, however no matter what the USA does it is wrong.
  It might help if the US got some sort of international support and helped the countries who most people believed needed helping, instead of unilaterally invading the ones with the most natural resources. Just saying.
3. Re:$15,0000,000 by magarity · 2011-01-01 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  It might help if the US got some sort of international support and helped the countries who most people believed needed helping, instead of unilaterally invading the ones with the most natural resources. Just saying.
  When was the last time the US unilaterally invaded a country? Granada?
4. Re:$15,0000,000 by brusk · 2011-01-01 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  The US has never invaded mainland Spain, to my knowledge. It did invade Granada in 1983, but the invasion of Panama in 1989 is more recent.
  
  --
  .sig withheld by request
5. Re:$15,0000,000 by brusk · 2011-01-01 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  I meant Grenada, of course. Hartman's Law strikes again.
  
  --
  .sig withheld by request
6. Re:$15,0000,000 by the+linux+geek · 2011-01-01 04:48 · Score: 2
  
  The invasion of Grenada wasn't unilateral; it was requested by, and involved forces from, a number of Caribbean states. Panama, on the other hand, was - and was, to the best of my knowledge, the last occurrence of a unilateral invasion by the US.
7. Re:$15,0000,000 by copponex · 2011-01-01 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  The United States government has only once invaded a nation to protect their sovereignty since WWII. And according to many sources, the USG allowed Iraq to invade Kuwait in order provide a pretext for war to balance power between Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia after the end of the Iran-Iraq War (which we helped Iraq wage.)
  The USG has never invaded a country solely to support a democracy.
8. Re:$15,0000,000 by macslas'hole · 2011-01-01 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Just saying.
  Do not ever use this phrase, you just completely invalidated what you had just said. By using this phrase, you are saying that you were "just saying" what you had just said and that, therefore, what you had just said was just words, i.e. gibberish.
  /rant
  
  --
  Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
9. Re:$15,0000,000 by peragrin · 2011-01-01 05:12 · Score: 2
  
  let me guess those same sources say the USA government also planned 911, and has anti gravity engines too.
  When the USA participates with other governments they can be told no not to go ahead. Which is what happened to germany for WW II Germany kept pushing and no one did anything until after it was too late. Iraq kept pushing and no one would allow them to be stopped before they invaded kuwait.
  If you understand the simple fact that no government can be anything but reactionary to events things make a lot more sense. Most of the information in diplomatic circles are gossip and lies. You can't prevent another 9/11 you can make it harder to do so, but you really can't prevent it. Like security on Windows no matter what you do if you want windows and internet access your going to eventually have a problem.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
10. Re:$15,0000,000 by Vinegar+Joe · 2011-01-01 05:14 · Score: 2
  
  It might help if the US got some sort of international support and helped the countries who most people believed needed helping, instead of unilaterally invading the ones with the most natural resources.
  Yeah.....as we all know South Korea, South Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Grenada and Panama are just swimming in natural resources vital to AmeriKKKa's military-industrial complex.
  
  --
  "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
11. Re:$15,0000,000 by hedwards · 2011-01-01 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Technically speaking it's been at last a century. But only because the Australians send troops whenever we go in, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea.
  
  OTOH, if you mean without the approval of the UN or a coalition of governments that answer is rather recent.
12. Re:$15,0000,000 by hedwards · 2011-01-01 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  That's not true. The Russians did a hell of a lot, and were it not for their sacrifices it's not likely that the US would've been able to take down Germany.
13. Re:$15,0000,000 by copponex · 2011-01-01 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  let me guess those same sources say the USA government also planned 911, and has anti gravity engines too.
  Red herrings are absolutely delicious.
  
  If you understand the simple fact that no government can be anything but reactionary to events things make a lot more sense.
  And if you understand that the United States is motivated by the exact same values as any other empire - hegemony and maintaining geopolitical stability - everything makes sense.
  
  You can't prevent another 9/11 you can make it harder to do so, but you really can't prevent it.
  Total bullshit. Al Qaeda targeted the United States because of our military presence in the middle east. If we hadn't been manipulating governments in the middle east since we divided up the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI, 9/11 would have never happened.
14. Re:$15,0000,000 by rjhubs · 2011-01-01 05:45 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  President Eisenhower's quote for why we aided the French in their war with Vietnam:
  
  "Now let us assume that we lose Indochina. If Indochina goes, several things happen right away. The Malayan peninsula, the last little bit of the end hanging on down there, would be scarcely defensible--and tin and tungsten that we so greatly value from that area would cease coming ... So, when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, we are not voting for a giveaway program. We are voting for the cheapest way that we can to prevent the occurrence of something that would be of the most terrible significance for the United States of America--our security, our power and ability to get certain things we need from the riches of the Indonesian territory, and from southeast Asia." - Quote from the Pentagon Papers
  
  So what were you trying to say again?
15. Re:$15,0000,000 by Arancaytar · 2011-01-01 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Because US foreign policy is limited to the two modes "Invasion" and "Apathy"?
16. Re:$15,0000,000 by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-01-01 06:04 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  That's not true. The Russians did a hell of a lot, and were it not for their sacrifices it's not likely that the US would've been able to take down Germany.
  Unlikely. No matter what else happened, along about August of 1945, Berlin would've found itself on the short list for one of the three A-bombs available.
  It must be noted that while the Soviets killed a lot of German soldiers, very little of what went on on the Eastern Front had much strategic significance - it didn't prevent the Germans from making more tanks, planes, subs, etc. Which means that sans the Soviet Union, we'd still have bombed the crap out of Germany, sunk its submarine fleet, etc.
  Which means Germany could have, at best, delayed our invasion of the European mainland.
  It must also be noted that without the moderately enormous amount of stuff we sent to the Soviets (specifically, trucks and locomotives), it is unlikely that the Soviet offensives could have been maintained.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
17. Re:$15,0000,000 by c6gunner · 2011-01-01 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  OTOH, if you mean without the approval of the UN or a coalition of governments that answer is rather recent.
  So ... Panama? Or were you thinking of something else?
18. Re:$15,0000,000 by c6gunner · 2011-01-01 06:15 · Score: 2
  
  Not sure about the Dominican republic, but Korea, Vietnam, and Grenada weren't "unilateral". Not disagreeing with your point, but if you're going to count non-unilateral engagements, then the list grows far, FAR larger. People seem to forget that the vast majority of US military conflicts have been at the behest or with the cooperation of the UN and/or other nations.
19. Re:$15,0000,000 by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2011-01-01 06:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yeah, that's not right. "Just Saying" is modern parlance for "this is so obvious I can't believe I even have to bring it up".
  If you're not up to speed with new slang, that's cool, just don't uncorrect us like a bull through the hall.
  God speed all the bakers at dawn!
  
  --
  Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
20. Re:$15,0000,000 by c6gunner · 2011-01-01 06:19 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Nonsense - if Russia hadn't gotten involved, the war would have lasted a bit longer, and the first nuke would have detonated over Berlin. Either way, the allies would have come out on top. Russia contributed a great deal - and sacrificed and suffered more than any other nation - but the idea that the war could not have been won without them is pure fiction.
21. Re:$15,0000,000 by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · 2011-01-01 07:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Your 'quote' is bogus. It is a heavily edited version of a speech Ike gave in public in 1953, when all of Eastern Europe was occupied by the USSR. You edited it to change the meaning entirely. This was a speech about how to keep the free world free, not about metals.
  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,858151,00.html
  It was included in one edition of the Pentagon Papers but was never secret.
  http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/ps7.htm
  Here's the part you deliberately left out:
  "But all India would be outflanked. Burma would certainly, in its weakened condition, be no defense. Now, India is surrounded on that side by the Communist empire. Iran on its left is in a weakened condition. I believe I read in the paper this morning that Mossadegh's move toward getting rid of his parliament has been supported and of course he was in that move supported by the Tudeh, which is the Communist Party of Iran. All of that weakening position around there is very ominous for the United States, because finally if we lost all that, how would the free world hold the rich empire of Indonesia? So you see, somewhere along the line, this must be blocked. It must be blocked now. That is what the French are doing."
  You're one of those revisionists who claim the Cold War never happened, tight? Or it was all America's fault?
  Communism killed around 100 million people in the 20th century. There's books about it, read one.
  
  --
  The latest Slashdot meme.
22. Re:$15,0000,000 by Barefoot+Monkey · 2011-01-01 08:00 · Score: 2
  
  It might help if the US got some sort of international support and helped the countries who most people believed needed helping, instead of unilaterally invading the ones with the most natural resources. Just saying.
  I'm not sure if it was strictly "unilateral", but your point is still very valid. In fact, here in Africa a typical response to hearing about the US invasions in the middle east was "why aren't they liberating Zimbabwe instead, where the locals actually want to be liberated?".
23. Re:$15,0000,000 by blind+monkey+3 · 2011-01-01 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  When was the last time the US unilaterally invaded a country? Granada?
  The US never invades unilaterally, they call their "allies" and tell them they are invading as well.
  What was that famous Dubya quote? "Either yer with us or agin us"?
  
  --
  BM3
24. Re:$15,0000,000 by peragrin · 2011-01-01 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  So when i say it it becomes a red Herring but when you say it it is the truth?
  The USA had very little to do with the dividing up of the Ottoman empire. The British had their colonies there and the USA mostly stayed out of it. We fought some in Egypt and northern Africa, but those battles of WW II were fought by those other than the USA.
  Most people in the Middle east including many Israelis have long forgotten why they continue to fight. My personal suggestion is to nuke Jerusalem and be done with it. One very high yield nuke or maybe three lower yields(hiroshima size). By the time the radiation cleared maybe just maybe we will have forgotten what all the fighting there is about. As a bonus. the millions of religious nutjobs that try to pray to stop said bombs will go out too. As long as an individual does it and no country it could work.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
25. Re:$15,0000,000 by rjhubs · 2011-01-01 10:20 · Score: 2
  
  I left it out because the meaning is still the same. Yes, I think everyone is well aware of the effect Domino Theory had on shaping U.S. actions at the time. We need to stop the spread of communism. But if you believe the primary reason for our intervention in the area was for the benefit of the locals, it is a naive belief at best.
  
  The last paragraph in your 2nd link is perfectly clear. Eisenhower's conclusion curiously fails to mention anything about helping the people, but rather mentions the need for the money to be spent to help the U.S. As someone who has traveled through the region, the anti-West sentiment there speaks for itself. You can see plenty of examples of the terrible effects U.S. and Soviet intervention had on the region. The easiest example to pick is the Khmer Rouge. The secret U.S. bombing campaign in Cambodia helped provide the conditions that allowed the brutal and genocidal regime to take power. Once this regime came into power the U.S. and the West did nothing to take stop the genocide. It only came to an end once Cambodia decided to attack Vietnam, which lead the Communist Vietnamese backed by the Soviet Union went in and took them out.
  
  So if we were in the region to help the locals and stop communism, why did we support the French in what was essentially a revolutionary war in Vietnam, yet do nothing to help the Cambodians being slaughtered by a Communist Regime? The evils of the Soviet Union do not absolve the U.S. of their own misdoings.
26. Re:$15,0000,000 by mjwalshe · 2011-01-01 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  they would have glassed the Ruhr industrial heartland - that is what the Manhattan project was aiming at.
27. Re:$15,0000,000 by dbIII · 2011-01-01 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  So those Russians in Berlin at the end of the war were purely imaginary?
  It can be taken furthur. As I see it, without Russian involvement the USA would have seen an attack on Germany as entering an unwinnable war and Japan wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbour if they had to worry about the entire Russian military.
28. Re:$15,0000,000 by budgenator · 2011-01-01 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  What difference does that make, The effective UN forces are 60% American, 15% British, 10% Canadian, 10% Australian and the rest of the world fills in the rest. No matter what happens it looks like an American operation because almost everybody speaks english.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
29. Re:$15,0000,000 by LordLimecat · 2011-01-02 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  Your 'quote' is bogus.
  
  The best thing about slashdot is that you know 80% of the posts make up 20% of their content.
30. Re:$15,0000,000 by RichiH · 2011-01-02 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  They are "allowed" to stay by a ruthless military force which follows Mugabe to the death:
  * Single soldiers not following orders by not fleeing will be dealt with in a very public manner.
  * The military gets benefits from the status quo.
  * The military will face the anger of the people once the status quo is gone.
  The "white colonial oppression" has always been a stick figure and from what I read, most people in Zimbabwe knew or learned this ages ago.
31. Re:$15,0000,000 by kdemetter · 2011-01-03 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry , but that is hard to say. Change one factor in history and everything might change.
  Remember that Germany was also working on an atom bomb.
  I also recall that Einstein played a certain role in it ( by writing a letter or at least by signing a letter , informing the president that Germany was building an atom bomb ) , which lead to the US deciding to build the bomb sooner.
  What do you think would have happened if Einstein didn't make it the US ?
  What would have happend if Germany was able to create the atom bomb , and use it before the US could ?
  If you look at history , you will see that many events are based on coincidence. Don't just take anything for granted.
  
  --
  Slipping shoelaces ?
32. Re:$15,0000,000 by c6gunner · 2011-01-03 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  What do you think would have happened if Einstein didn't make it the US ?
  Leo Szilard would have found some other famous scientist to sign his name to the letter.
  
  What would have happend if Germany was able to create the atom bomb , and use it before the US could ?
  What would have happened if pink unicorns farted fallout?
  You don't get to posit random scenarios and claim that they somehow disprove what I said. There's no link between Russian involvement in WW2 and German research into atomic weapons.
33. Re:$15,0000,000 by kdemetter · 2011-01-03 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  You don't get to posit random scenarios and claim that they somehow disprove what I said. There's no link between Russian involvement in WW2 and German research into atomic weapons.
  That's just it . I don't claim to disprove what you said. My claim is there is no way to be certain of that.
  Just as there 'being no link between WW2 and German research into atomic weapons' , is only true because that is the history we know.
  As i said , there is no telling what would happen if one thing changed.
  So your view on what would have happened , is as valid as any.
  
  --
  Slipping shoelaces ?
34. Re:$15,0000,000 by c6gunner · 2011-01-03 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's just it . I don't claim to disprove what you said. My claim is there is no way to be certain of that. ...
  So your view on what would have happened , is as valid as any.
  That is, in a word, "retarded". You can use that reasoning to excuse just about anything. Certainty isn't required in order to have confidence in a conclusion, nor is the lack of certainty a reason to accept any random nonsense.
  Creationists do this all the time with their "teach the controversy" bullshit, when they say things like "you can't be sure how all of evolution happened, therefor my magic-man with his talking snake is just as valid". It's asinine when they do it, and it's just as asinine here.
35. Re:$15,0000,000 by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-01-05 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  So those Russians in Berlin at the end of the war were purely imaginary?
  Never forget that Eisenhower ordered his men to leave Berlin to the Russians. Note that this decision came after asking General Bradley to estimate the casualties required to take Berlin. Bradley's answer was quit close, by the by, to the actual Soviet losses.
  
  It can be taken furthur. As I see it, without Russian involvement the USA would have seen an attack on Germany as entering an unwinnable war and Japan wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbour if they had to worry about the entire Russian military.
  You should try reading more history. The Japanese were Soviet allies in WW2. Yes, we were at war with an ally of one of our allies, and the Soviets were at war with an ally of one of their allies.
  Note, by the way, that the American involvement in WW2 began long before Pearl Harbor (we were selling weapons to our various European allies even before the invasion of Poland (on a cash and carry basis, legal under international laws governing neutrals), and our Navy was escorting convoys (and fighting U-Boats) before we were officially at war. Note also that Lend-Lease violated the same international laws on neutrality that allowed us to sell weapons to combatants on a "cash and carry" basis.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
36. Re:$15,0000,000 by kdemetter · 2011-01-08 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  So you don't like it when people say that they don't know something , rather than agreeing with you ?
  That is the only thing i'm saying : i don't know what will happen , and i don't think you know either.
  That's actually the opposite of creationists : they claim to know something , even though it can't be proven ( a bit like what you are doing )
  I'm open to any hypothesis , but i don't take any of them to be 'true' just because you say so.
  
  --
  Slipping shoelaces ?
Other People wil suffer. by AndGodSed · 2011-01-01 03:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is one of those times where I feel a sense of justification for the anonymous attacks. Mugabe should be run out of office sooner than later.
Problem is, this kind of attack against his governments sites will have one effect: It will bolster his insane claims of overseas meddling causing his countries problems. It is a lie, Mugabe is the no1 cause for the problems Zim is having now, but all anonymous have done is lend credibility to his claims of overseas "agents" (yes he has used that term) causing trouble in Zimbabwe.
This will have the effect that his supporter base will grow, and lend him greater power.

--
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
1. Re:Other People wil suffer. by openfrog · 2011-01-01 04:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  This is one of those times where I feel a sense of justification for the anonymous attacks. Mugabe should be run out of office sooner than later.
  Problem is, this kind of attack against his governments sites will have one effect: It will bolster his insane claims of overseas meddling causing his countries problems. It is a lie, Mugabe is the no1 cause for the problems Zim is having now, but all anonymous have done is lend credibility to his claims of overseas "agents" (yes he has used that term) causing trouble in Zimbabwe.
  This will have the effect that his supporter base will grow, and lend him greater power.
  Spot on. Furthermore, responsible reporting of these events would avoid speculating on the source for these attacks, eg.: "Hit by Pro-WikiLeaks DDoS attacks". It will, or it already is, all too easy for a tyrant to justify repression by perpetrating an attack on his own servers, just like the Reichstag fire, except that you don't need to really burn the parliamant to justify what will follow but just cause yourself a minor annoyance and then cry murder.
  This Anonymous thing, if it is done by teenagers, is the stupidest thing ever, and if done by psy-ops, quite clever, as journalists seem to continue to report this unaware.
2. Re:Other People wil suffer. by Pstrobus · 2011-01-01 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  This Anonymous thing, if it is done by teenagers, is the stupidest thing ever, and if done by psy-ops, quite clever
  My vote is teenagers, the stupid to signal ratio is too high for psy-ops. Besides Mugabe prefers direct action (gukurahundi, 2008 election violence) and seems to appreciate the simplicity of "one person who annoys me, one bullet." False flagging in order to proclaim that "Tha Foreigners" are out to get Zim is too complex and much less useful, he can just point to Tsvangirai's meeting with western folks if he wants to hype "The Enemies are out to get us."
  
  as journalists seem to continue to report this unaware
  I assume you mean the assumption that this is 1) by anonymous 2) related to WikiLeaks, correct?
  
  --
  "The conduct of neither [party], if strictly examined, will be irreproachable." -Elizabeth Bennet
3. Re:Other People wil suffer. by jasonditz · 2011-01-01 05:14 · Score: 2
  
  I've had people make the same argument to me against the WikiLeaks leaks in general, except with the Obama regime instead of the Mugabe one.
  That embarrassing a corrupt government is going to lead to a crackdown is no real excuse not to embarrass them, as they're going to find an excuse to crack down either way.
4. Re:Other People wil suffer. by openfrog · 2011-01-01 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  My vote is teenagers, the stupid to signal ratio is too high for psy-ops.
  
  as journalists seem to continue to report this unaware
  I assume you mean the assumption that this is 1) by anonymous 2) related to WikiLeaks, correct?
  You write "my vote". Indeed, this is my point: we can only speculate on the source of these attacks. And if teenagers, manipulated or not? Do you assume, or vote, for a public opinion shaping event on the scale of WikiLeaks and the sudden irruption of Anonymous on the story not to be the concern of intelligence agencies with a view on policy shaping?
  Whoever was at the beginning of Anonymous, there is absolutely no way to verify the source of a given attack. As a consequence, responsible journalists should stop speculating on their sources. By "unaware", I mean unaware that whenever they write that a DDoS attack is done by Anonymous, they actually don't know what they are talking about.
5. Re:Other People wil suffer. by AndGodSed · 2011-01-01 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  You are right - They will find an excuse to crack down.
  The question is: Why give them one? Why aid them by handing them an excuse?
  And as for embarrassment, I think it is hardly embarrassing to have your government site taken offline, especially one that draws as little traffic as this one - Its alexa ranking is 2,460,718! My blog gets roughly ten times the traffic that they do according to alexa!
  If they wanted to disrupt something worthwhile they could have gone after a telecommunications server - surely if Anonymous were as smart as they allude to be they could have figured out the address of one.
  
  --
  Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
clarification by bsDaemon · 2011-01-01 03:52 · Score: 1

Just to clarify, the GDP of Zimbabwe works out to $100/per capita, not the $15,000,000 target of the suit.
How does one DDoS Zimbabwe websites? by Ant+P. · 2011-01-01 04:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Ping flood it from two 56k lines instead of just the one?
1. Re:How does one DDoS Zimbabwe websites? by Trailer+Trash · 2011-01-01 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Or figure out the phone number of their dial-up line to South Africa and call it repeatedly - until they figure out how to disable call waiting.
  
  --
  Do you have ESP?
2. Re:How does one DDoS Zimbabwe websites? by Mashiki · 2011-01-01 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  No. They run along hitting the string between two cans.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
3. Re:How does one DDoS Zimbabwe websites? by Sir_Lewk · 2011-01-01 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Alternatively, his post suggests that be believes Zimbabwe has infrastructure problems, and you are the one bringing up racism.
  The phrase "get your mind out of the gutter" comes to mind...
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Re:Licking wounds by betterunixthanunix · 2011-01-01 04:19 · Score: 1

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

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Licking wounds by AndGodSed · 2011-01-01 04:25 · Score: 2

Well at least one of the sites is hosted on a server in Newark if the queries are to be believed.

--
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
Re:Until somebody gets hurt by Pi1grim · 2011-01-01 04:45 · Score: 2

Those kiddies won't have anything on their hands. It will be those, that will create that genocide, who will. Noone blames jews for the Holocaust, no matter how much Nazi propaganda talked about how they brought it on themselves.
The one who looks for an excuse to do something will always find one. So if we pull our heads out of our asses and take a look at what happens around us (not just in the countries, that have rich natural resources) maybe we can prevent another genocidal leader ruining millions of lives.
Re:Until somebody gets hurt by Viol8 · 2011-01-01 05:37 · Score: 1

Even homicidal dictators need some small reason to do what they do. Mugabe has just been handed one on a plate by Wikileaks and its kiddy followers. Anyone with half a brain and an understanding of human nature can see that. Unfortunately an understanding of human nature isn't something apsergers types like Assange and his equally socially inept cheerleaders have.
Why bother? Zim is a failed state. by flyingfsck · 2011-01-01 05:44 · Score: 1

Zim doesn't even qualify as a Banana Republic.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
1. Re:Why bother? Zim is a failed state. by koreaman · 2011-01-01 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Sure it is. :)
  
  --
  Le français vous intéresse?
Do we know for sure... by drooling-dog · 2011-01-01 05:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

...that these attacks "in support of Wikileaks" are what they are represented to be? Or is it possible that at least some of them could be false flag attacks designed to make the case later that breaching government secrecy is somehow tantamount to terrorism? Just asking... I really have no idea, but neither do I expect things always to be what they appear.
1. Re:Do we know for sure... by poity · 2011-01-01 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Who's to say wikileaks itself isn't a false flag operation by that thought process? When you go down that road of paranoia, there's no end to what COULD BE.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
2. Re:Do we know for sure... by Duradin · 2011-01-01 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  I think all these questions about the attacks in support of Wikileaks being a false flag operation are just a false flag operation to make it look more plausible that they are a false flag operation.
  It's conspiracies and useful idiots all the way down.
  Or people doing it for the lulz.
3. Re:Do we know for sure... by l33t+gambler · 2011-01-03 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  You shouldn't exclude any possibilities. It's all possible, just more or less unlikely. Calling it paranoia and stop asking questions is ignorant and self deceiving. But calling it very unlikely and not interesting enough to investigate is fine.
  
  --
  Teasing the nobles, and rightfully so!
Re:Until somebody gets hurt by Plunky · 2011-01-01 06:17 · Score: 1

Even homicidal dictators need some small reason to do what they do.
They are homicidal dictators, they don't need reasons!

Mugabe has just been handed one on a plate by Wikileaks and its kiddy followers.
Well now, an excuse, is not the same as a reason.. Incitement to riot is not a reason to riot. You can point and say 'They made me do it' but you know what? As an adult, you are going to be responsible for your own actions..
Terrorism by jrbirdman · 2011-01-01 07:52 · Score: 1

Plain and simple.
Grace Mugabe Article by EuclideanSilence · 2011-01-01 11:22 · Score: 1

Here is the article she is suing over. http://www.thestandard.co.zw/local/27601-first-lady-gono-in-diamond-scandal-wikileaks.html
Re:Licking wounds by budgenator · 2011-01-01 14:43 · Score: 1

Holy fuck, "ZWD72 million (USD0.12 at June 2008 exchange rates)" they'd have to pay their cell phone bill with billion dollar notes!
Could you sell a package of corn seeds and ask the buy for 150 million dollars and keep a straight face?

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
$150,000,000 US is a portion of the trade by Demonoid-Penguin · 2011-01-01 17:23 · Score: 1

It might help if the US got some sort of international support and helped the countries who most people believed needed helping, instead of unilaterally invading the ones with the most natural resources. Just saying.
Especially given the existing presence of the Chinese military (allegedly here 1943'28.99"S 3225'33.06"E) .... though I'd be surprised if actual "help" ever arrives - far too much money just in the blood diamonds, and far too many "very" powerful players.
I'd be a little cautious about buying anything Andrew Cranswick sold me without checking carefully first, especially if it's a cattle station (Moola Bulla) - equally I'd consider giving him a some credit when he denies that he pointed at Ernest "Deadly" Blom in the first place - but then Cranswick is possibly in SA at present, so SA bullbars might be higher on his list of concerns than Zim ones.
Just the legacy of Rhodes makes any change in Zim a very tricky proposition, dig a little into the Fullbright connection for more complexities. The whole thing just turns my stomach.
Don't confuse Slashdot with Wikipedia folks - do your own research, I have neither the time, the ability, or the inclination to prove anything, and everything.
Re:What the politicians are too polite to say by Demonoid-Penguin · 2011-01-01 18:01 · Score: 1

These countries problems are with the people, and greed and stupidity. Fix that first, FIRST!!!, and then you can do the rest.
You are right. Thanks for putting up the truth.
While sincerely not wanting to muddy the waters.... The corruption is fueled by profit, and those (outside of Zim) who profit the most will continue to manipulate the situation in their favour. Fixing, by any means, the situation in Zim is not in their (sic) favour.
IMO one of the areas that foreigners (governments and their citizens) can, and should, help is in the identification and prosecution of those outside of Zim that benefit from, and contribute to the ongoing problems.
I'd also add a lack of an equitably education system to the list of things Zim needs to sort itself out. Sadly the contributions in that area by Rhodes (and Fullbright) don't seem to have helped.
Mozambique is just as bad - just not as popular in the press. To anyone planning on visiting Zim - no amount of pula or rand will save you arse from the ZANU-PF if you are caught with *any* camouflage clothing. For 'some reason' both Moz and Zim are *very* paranoid about the idea of foreign mercenaries arriving to try and stage a coupe.