Slashdot Mirror
Zimbabwe Gov't Websites Hit By Pro-WikiLeaks DDoS Attack
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."
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.
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
Anything done that "annoys" Zimbabwe's leaders is well worth the effort in my opinion.
Ping flood it from two 56k lines instead of just the one?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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/
President Eisenhower's quote for why we aided the French in their war with Vietnam:
... 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
"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 what were you trying to say again?
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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?".
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.