Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US State Department Hacks Al-Qaeda Websites In Yemen

Posted by samzenpus on from the hearts-and-minds dept.

shuttah writes "In the growing Al-Qaeda activity in Yemen, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed today that 'cyber experts' had recently hacked into web sites being used by an Al-Qaeda affiliate, substituting the group's anti-American rhetoric with information about civilians killed in terrorist strikes. Also this week, a statement from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs revealed the presence an Al-Qaeda video calling for 'Electronic Jihad.'"

155 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. They did it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    They did it for the lulz.

    1. Re:They did it... by Reasonable+Facsimile · · Score: 1

      They did it for the lulz.

      1337 SKILLZ, yo!

    2. Re:They did it... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is a matter of record and fact: The US kills more innocent civilians in Yemen - or anywhere else, for that matter - than do any alleged 'al-qaeda' affiliates.

      Jeremy Scahill, National Security reporter for The Nation:

      "Saleh essentially made an agreement with the Obama administration to get an increase in his counterterrorism funding in return for allowing the United States to conduct various operations of its own, unilaterally. And so, effectively, counterterrorism funding for his regime became like crack cocaine. Yemen is the poorest country in the Arab world. His government was extremely corrupt. This was their cash cow, claiming that they were fighting terrorism.

      And so what you've seen over the past 10, 12 years of history between the United States and Yemen is Ali Abdullah Saleh, when it was convenient for him, allowing the al-Qaida threat to flare up, looking the other way when 23 al-Qaida people broke out of the prison that they were supposed to be held in, actually allowing weapons to be smuggled into al-Qaida areas so that they would attack a police station, and then coming back to the United States and saying, oh, we really need more funding to go and fight these terrorists."

      " the United States has sort of outsourced its intelligence operations in Yemen to Saudi Arabia and Yemen's security forces. And we've seen repeatedly over the past 10 years the Saudis and the Yemenis manipulate events regarding al-Qaida within Yemen to try to curry favor with the United States or to get more funding.

      And so I just would sort of reserve commentary, as a reporter who's covered Yemen extensively and been there, on going too far down the line of guessing who this agent was, who he was working for, and what he actually did, because I've seen it too many times where someone's getting played, or someone's getting spun."

      "Colleagues of mine who are in the south of Yemen right now and are on really the front lines of this drone war, my friend Iona Craig, who's a great reporter for the Times of London, was just saying to me that she met civilians who were severely burned from the drone strikes and that one civilian that she talked to said there were 26 people killed in the strike that he survived and was severely burned in."

      "the U.S. bombed this village and killed 46 people, and we know the names of all of the people that were killed. I went there myself. I interviewed a woman who lost her entire family. An old man, 17 of those 46 people that were killed were members of his family. There were five pregnant women among the dead."

      http://www.npr.org/2012/05/17/152854335/why-the-u-s-is-aggressively-targeting-yemen

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:They did it... by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think to think that's what the banter around the office at the NSA sounds like.

    4. Re:They did it... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the UK and US strategy is to start a war on foreign soil then stand back throwing rocks from a distance and then say "but the poor soldiers might die if we sent them in, you unpatriotic, insensitive clod" if anyone points out the poor accuracy of our "precision" strikes and suggests, like, you know, invading properly, up close.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    5. Re:They did it... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Dude, this isn't war. It's the next thing up.

      Square -> Cube -> Tesseract
      Battle -> War -> This Thing

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    6. Re:They did it... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      Citation, please.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    7. Re:They did it... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Informative

      In Pakistan alone - a country with which we are supposedly not at war - the US toll on civilians is outstanding in its atrocity:

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan, citing the Bureau of Investigative Journalism:

      US Drone Strike statistic based on months of research by a team of journalists of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism:

              Total reported killed: 2,433 - 3,093
              Civilians reported killed: 467 - 815
              Children reported killed: 178
              Total reported injured: 1,163 -1,268
              Strikes under the Bush Administration: 52
              Strikes under the Obama Administration: 267
              Total strikes: 319

      On 14 July 2009, Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution stated that although accurate data on the results of drone strikes is difficult to obtain, it seemed that ten civilians had died in the drone attacks for every militant killed. He suggested that drone strikes may kill "10 or so civilians" for every militant killed, which would represent a civilian to combatant casualty ratio of 10:1. Byman argues that civilian killings constitute a humanitarian tragedy and create dangerous political problems, including damage to the legitimacy of the Pakistani government and alienation of the Pakistani populace from America. He suggested that the real answer to halting al-Qaeda's activity in Pakistan will be long-term support of Pakistan's counterinsurgency efforts.

      -- Or you can believe the CIA, who are PAID NOT TO LIE!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    8. Re:They did it... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So.
      This comment you deride is "Flamebait" because it cites independent analysis by someone who has actually interviewed primary sources IN YEMEN.

      This is opposed to the "factual" position that you maintain is presented by the unvalidated, assertions presented unilaterally by state/administration sources.

      Why are you so pro big government?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    9. Re:They did it... by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 2

      If you think NPR is lying, then you should perhaps investigate it. You could make quite a name for yourself in doing so; NPR is a reputable news organization.

      For another great example, go talk to the Afghans who had bombs dropped on their weddings. Just google "us bomb afghanistan wedding". Take your pick of major news outlets, if you don't trust NPR then maybe you trust CNN? Or NYT? BBC? Guardian? Fox news? CBS? Financial Times? MSNBC? LA Times? I mean, sure, they're all on the Internet, but pretty much every single news organization on earth has covered this at one point in time or another.

      By the way, don't get confused by all the various dates; there have been multiple instances of the US bombing weddings in Afghanistan. I lost track, I think it happened six different times. ...Oh, wait, I get it...in your eyes, there is no such thing as an innocent Muslim, huh?

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    10. Re:They did it... by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      Don't be an ass.

    11. Re:They did it... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Citations, please.

      Pakistan gets more money from the US, than any other single source.

      The other significant funding of social and religious elements in Pakistan comes from staunch ally, Saudi Arabia.

      BTW: There were NO Yemenis, Pakistanis or even Afghans REMOTELY connected with the occurrences on 9/11/00. In fact, all documentation leads entirely to involvement by Saudis. Alone.

      Only the most blinkered of observers would not conjecture that the presence of ill-defined "al qaeda" groups in these three countries is the likely outcome of US/UK military invasions of their countries.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    12. Re:They did it... by daveschroeder · · Score: 2

      AP IMPACT: New light on drone war's death toll

    13. Re:They did it... by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      AP IMPACT: New light on drone war's death toll

    14. Re:They did it... by overbaud · · Score: 1

      How about fireworks. Are fireworks at a wedding acceptable to you? Because you can bet if they started launching fireworks they get nailed as well. It is socially acceptable to fire guns in celebration in MANY countries, hell ANZAC day in Australia they fire guns, cannons, artillery all kinds of shit, they do it in the US as well, have you ever attended a military parade or funeral. Oh... what you mean is they should not fire guns in celebration while there is an occupying force in their country. Nice one. I wonder how many of those guns are relics supplied by the US to help fight the soviets. You're a dick.

      --
      Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
    15. Re:They did it... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I didn't realise there was a +1 pro-US propaganda moderation option.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    16. Re:They did it... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If our military is active on foreign soil assume people and civlians are dying.

      Well, yes, that's kind of the point. The important question is why they're there in the first place.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:They did it... by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      there have been multiple instances of the US bombing weddings in Afghanistan.

      Generally due to retarded people firing automatic weapons into the air.

      Guns aren't toys, and if you act like they are you fucking well deserve to be shot.

      But these people are not shot, they are blown to bits along with everyone else within about 100 meters. That's a grossly excessive response to some loonies firing guns at empty airspace. Besides, not all the weddings that got bombed were due to loonies firing guns in the air.

      Weddings are a big deal in these cultures. China doesn't bomb you whenever you hold a BBQ for friends and family do they?

    18. Re:They did it... by 1s44c · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Looks like we gotta kill 2k more to get even. Its like we all forgot that 11 years ago they gave us the biggest fuck you ever. I say burn em all

      The people that flew the planes into the buildings are already dead. Before they attacked you they made the decision that they would be willing to die if it meant striking back at their perceived oppressor, the US.

      While the US is killing random targets they are creating more and more potential terrorists who will go to greater and greater extremes to get revenge.

      If the US stops killing people today it will have less terrorists to deal with in the next 30 or so years.

    19. Re:They did it... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      "They" are not in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen or Indonesia.

      "em all" are Saudi Arabia. A client of the US and Israel.

       

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    20. Re:They did it... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Not USian. But this is the date convention they use domestically, for their "Reichstag Fire".

      If I referred to 11/9, no one would follow the reference.

      And I wouldn't be able to spell "Rudy Gi911ani" anymore...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  2. Why? by catmistake · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not to sound unpatriotic, but h4x1ng their bank accounts and those of their supporters would impress me more. Go Joe!!

    --
    The Admin and the Engineer
    1. Re:Why? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      Psyops. It's all about using knowledge and bias as a weapon.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:Why? by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Psyops. It's all about using knowledge and bias as a weapon.

      Fair enough. And I see now even a slap in the face really is a valid and effective attack against them. Thanks for making that point.

      --
      The Admin and the Engineer
    3. Re:Why? by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Al-Qaeda is a former CIA asset. In fact they are still using them in Egypt and Syria to exert regime change. They don't want to *really* want hurt their friend/ally by stealing money..... just put on a little show to impress the Americans back home.

      1 - http://www.infowars.com/syrian-girl-natos-secret-agenda-in-syria/
      2 - http://www.infowars.com/al-qaeda-rebel-pictured-with-un-observers-in-syria/
      3 - http://www.infowars.com/cia-double-agent-cia-and-british-intelligence-created-ruse-known-as-al-qaeda/
      4 - http://www.infowars.com/nato-using-al-qaeda-to-destabilize-syria/

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:Why? by lgw · · Score: 1

      You do realize that "infowars" is masturbatory fiction for conspiracy nuts, right? I mean, it can be entertaining just like the old Weekly World News story on Saddam and bin Laden's mariage was entertaining (with great wedding photos), but it's about as credible a source.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Why? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Raiding bank accounts is theft -- crimes against our enemies don't necessarily improve our overall position. In some cases, it is counter productive in the larger sense because such actions can generate sympathy for the enemy and contempt for us. However, posting the honest truth in place of their manipulative deceptions will undermine their propaganda, give pause to reasonable people who support our enemies due to misinformation, and not upset allies in the region and abroad. The truth is a difficult weapon to criticize, and wielding it effectively is a required element of modern war.

      Erm... you do realise that website hacking is a crime too, right? And that this can generate sympathy for the enemy and contempt for the US? Like, "look, the capitalist infidels are scared of our words and replace them with their own," or "they cry democracy and free speech, but attempt to silence the voice of the people." That kind of stuff. It doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    6. Re:Why? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      I thought Al-Qaeda was essentially a phantom organisation invented by some CIA informant, and that Osama just latched onto the name as a prefab label of fear, and that there was suggestions that others had done the same....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    7. Re:Why? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Sad news, everyone: they didn't hack or replace anything. They just posted images on a forum where the Al-Qaeda people had been posting their own images. This is a colossal non-story.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    8. Re:Why? by Entropius · · Score: 1

      So, wait. Was this really just a

      "YBHT. YHL. HAND. -Uncle Sam (pbuh)" thing?

    9. Re:Why? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Great Scott. Is this the new US foreign policy...?

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    10. Re:Why? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Al-Qaeda is a former CIA asset.

      Wha......? First of all, bin Laden had no contact with Americans during his time in Afghanistan in the 80s (and in fact he spent most, if not all of his time, in Pakistan). The US funneled it's money directly to selected mujaheddin forces. bin Laden got all of his money either from rich Saudis, or through contacts in the ISI. His role during the Afghan War was purely a support role. He funneled money and fighters, and procured accommodations for foreigners headed into Afghanistan from Pakistan. Following Afghanistan he spent time in Sudan, where he was hiding out, from Americans. During Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, he offered the use of his forces to protect Saudi Arabia to keep US forces off Saudi soil. al-Qaeda started targeting US troops as early as the early 90s. They bombed 2 US embassies killing hundreds. None of these are the actions of a government asset. The Soviets under Stalin weren't even crazy enough to pull off false flags like this. Something like this would be even beyond the level of Hitler and the Reichstag fire. Not to mention the fact that the CIA never thought through plans that long reaching and complicated. They couldn't even pull off the contras without getting caught. The Ancient Aliens guy has more sound logic and theories than you do, and that guy's a complete nutbag.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    11. Re:Why? by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      I don't reject news just because I don't like the source. The links I provided include an interview from an actual Syrian, plus links to more-reputable sources like NY Times. I may not believe infowars, but I believe the NYT and a direct witness on the ground.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    12. Re:Why? by catmistake · · Score: 1

      I was being completely genuine. I hadn't thought of it... and it is a good point, a valid attack to demoralize an enemy known to be overly proud and vain.

      --
      The Admin and the Engineer
    13. Re:Why? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      So by any chance did that "information about civilians killed in terrorist strikes" include details about innocent victims killed by drone missile strikes or is the US State Department still heavily into pretending they don't exist and they are by far the best recruiting tool for those violently opposed to the US.

      Where would we be now if the US actually adhered to justice and sought to arrest and publicly try people accused of terrorist crimes, rather than seemingly randomly blowing people and hoping for the best. Not even bothering with trials in absentia to prove their case for homicide just relying on a mass media approved and spread 'WESAYSO' approach, yeah it's true dinosaur thinking.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:Why? by lgw · · Score: 1

      "direct witness on the ground" is of course quite an unreliable source (talk to anyone who's ever interviewed people about an event), and the NYT lost any reputation for honesty years ago (though it's still better than most big papers, that's sadly saying very little). Mostly, anything war related is going to be propaganda, no matter how packaged.

      AP newfeeds in particular are quite anti-American propaganda, and there were some classic "I can't believe they actually ran this" stories during the Iraq war, from the photoshopped "civilian damage" that a child could spot as a shop, to the great interview with a "direct witness on the ground" complaining that US tropp "shot these bullets through my walls", while holding up unfired rounds for the photo. The news these days starts with a narrative and selects truthy-looking bits that fit the narrative - it's very noticable when your political opponents do it, but somehow confirmation bias totally blinds most people to how fictional all of the large news channels are these days.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  3. ...Huh? by twotacocombo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The feds hack a website, and they issue a triumphant press release. Anonymous does it, and they release the hounds.

    1. Re:...Huh? by bhcompy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe they'd be okay with it if Anonymous hacked terrorist websites instead of the websites of Western governments and businesses?

    2. Re:...Huh? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As if this is news? For decades, the feds have been busting into innocent people's homes and killing them and their dogs, without being arrested or imprisoned for it. Now, if I were to throw a grenade into someone's house, rush in with an assault rifle and kill them, what do you suppose would happen to me?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:...Huh? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...terrorist websites instead of the websites of Western governments and businesses?

      You mean there's a difference?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:...Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe they'd be okay with it if Anonymous hacked terrorist websites instead of the websites of Western governments and businesses?

      Terrorists defined so by Western Governments makes everything alright, doesn't it? No. If you call hacking a crime, then it is a crime for the government too. It is stupid they made it public, because now they acting like terrorists themselves. This is why more terrorists exist.

    5. Re:...Huh? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      That is a really terrible SOP as well. I can promise this, if you enter my home legally or illegally and do deliberate harm to my pet you will have removed any possibility the of the situation being resolved without additional violence. I don't care what uniform you have on, my response will be to defend my home and family inclusive of pets with any force that can be mustered.

       

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re:...Huh? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

      Sudden death because you failed to observe the [throw grenade -> explosion] interval?

    7. Re:...Huh? by internerdj · · Score: 1

      Now if I were to pave a road through your backyard and let vehicles travel by your bedroom window at all times of the day and night, what do you suppose would happen to me? Maybe I'm missing your sarcasm, but government is a group of people to which we give additional protections and authority for the purpose of executing actions that are in the benefit of society in general. We should fight corruption and try to maintain a fair definition of benefit to society, but to say they are to be held to the exact same standards as private citizens is to open yourself to exploitation from any number of persons or groups that wield an individual does.

    8. Re:...Huh? by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yup. Underscoring this.... I was listening to Hillary and Panetta yesterday talking about this Doctor in Pakistan. The guy has been arrested for "Working for a foriegn intelligence agency". A crime which could get you life in prison or even death if you were caught doing it here.

      They, of course, want their informant released. Never mind that he broke the trust of Doctor Patient priviledge for untold numbers of people by setting up fake vaccination clinics to sample DNA (which, if done here would have gotten his license taken away and gotten him slapped with serious violations of the law), never mind that he is a Pakistani national who essentially became a spie for a foeign government....

      nope...somehow they don't understand why this guy is in prison.... even though they would hang him if he was an American and did the same things here.

      I don't see whats so hard to understand. The law is great, as long as its convinent to the people in power. The rule of law apparently isn't supposed to apply to them or their sycophants.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    9. Re:...Huh? by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      The feds hack a website, and they issue a triumphant press release. Anonymous does it, and they release the hounds.

      I am still not sure how I feel about the federal government defacing websites, but I do know how I feel about vigilante justice. I am firmly against it, and I believe that this is what Anonymous is all about. I am OK with the feds releasing the proverbial hounds against Anonymous.

      --

      -Turkey

    10. Re:...Huh? by Galestar · · Score: 1, Troll

      terrorist websites instead of the websites of Western governments and businesses

      One and the same.

      --
      AccountKiller
    11. Re:...Huh? by internerdj · · Score: 1

      My state's Castle law states specifically that it can't be used if the invader is a LEO acting in pursuit of his duties. No one has ever been able to legally explain how this would play out in court in the case of a no-knock warrant. I presume that even with a no knock warrant there is a formal announcement, but if my door bursts in I may not have time to wait for verification. I keep thinking of the guy who got SWATed and met the team with a kitchen knife when he heard people sneaking around outside his house.

    12. Re:...Huh? by TheCarp · · Score: 1, Funny

      Meh I don't see much difference between vigilante "justice" and regular "justice"...its all just excuses to use violence against people.

      Now, when "jusitce" is used against people who probably did something really bad, like murder, or rape...then I have no problem with it, and even cheer its application.

      I don't like it much in the abstract though, I certainly don't cheer it, and do have a problem with it when its used against people who grow plants and sell things to consenting adults with no fraud involved. In fact, then i consider it a crime against humanity, and wish someone would apply some "justice" back to the perpetrators.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    13. Re:...Huh? by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it is merely a fortunate side side effect.

    14. Re:...Huh? by kiwimate · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Point one - it wasn't hacking; they posted counter-propaganda messages on a comment forum. Earlier versions of the story called it hacking, but that was updated within minutes.

      Point two - Anonymous releases plenty of triumphant press releases themselves. Anonymous releases their "hounds" (i.e. DDOS attacks) in response to just about any random provocation. What's your point?

      And...

      Point three - are you seriously equating a counter-propaganda operation against Al Quaeda with DDOS attacks designed to disrupt web sites against somewhat random corporations?

      Al Quaeda deliberately attempts to kill innocent people. Your kids. Your local school teacher. Your sister. That old lady in some small town who never did a bad thing in her life and just wants to pay a visit to New York to see the Big Apple, now that she's getting on in years. Al Quaeda looks at them and says, great, the more harmless and innocent, the better, that'll really get our point across.

      RIAA, MPAA, MasterCard, etc., do not deliberately attempt to kill innocent people.

      I know some of these corporations are poorly regarded by geeks, but please try and keep some fashion of perspective. If you can't legitimately see the difference (as opposed to engaging in hyperbole for deliberate effect), then you have a problem.

      Point four - I'd think the second story (which seems to be overlooked so far) is more interesting. A media release from Al Quaeda encouraging cyber attacks, attacks against the power grid, etc. But that's not as flamebait friendly, is it.

    15. Re:...Huh? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      You are missing the point about throwing grenades into the homes of people who committed no crime, then busting down their door and shooting them. This happens all over the country:

      http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/

      The SWAT teams and drug squads who kill people generally receive no punishment for their actions, even when they kill innocent people. These are not actions that benefit society -- these are people who committed no crime and posed no danger, who were killed by paramilitary police squads.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    16. Re:...Huh? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Let's get this in perspective. Our government is using drones to launching missiles at buildings housing suspected militants and you are worried about the crime of hacking? I'm pretty sure it's a crime to bomb civilians, too.

    17. Re:...Huh? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No. If you call hacking a crime, then it is a crime for the government too.

      Think for a second -- murder is illegal, but war is not. What is war, but mass murder on a huge scale? A thing is illegal when the government says it is, and illegal when the government says it is. That's how the world works, kid.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    18. Re:...Huh? by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      When the US government bombs an enemy military structure, we issue a triumphant press release. When an anonymous US citizen bombs a US military structure we release the hounds.

      Slashdot complains a lot that the US justice system doesn't seem to understand how to apply existing privacy and copyright law to the internet... And we can't seem to figure out how existing forign policy might apply to the internet. Nice. :)

    19. Re:...Huh? by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      Meh I don't see much difference between vigilante "justice" and regular "justice"...its all just excuses to use violence against people.

      Now, when "jusitce" is used against people who probably did something really bad, like murder, or rape...then I have no problem with it, and even cheer its application.

      I know! How could anyone have a problem with someone who probably did something really bad being beaten and/or killed?

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    20. Re:...Huh? by MorePower · · Score: 2

      I can at least understand trying to kill terrorists. Civilians get killed because of our desperation to kill the terrorists. I mean, it's horrible and all, but at least there is an understandable goal there.

      This seems just flat out petty. If we hacked websites to locate terrorists, or anticipate attacks, or disrupt their finances, I could understand that. But to hack in and just insert our own video? And admit that we did it? It just makes us look like script kiddies putting "USA rulz!!! LOL OMG" on stuff.

      Crap like this makes our enemies hate us just a little bit more, and makes our allies just a little bit more reluctant to support us, and doesn't accomplish anything material.

    21. Re:...Huh? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I get the mentality. However, in doing so he abused the trust of the community by using his position as Doctor and broke patient confidentiality. He should spend the rest of his days behind bars for that alone.

      Besides that.... working for "us" is fine, but Pakistan is not us, and Pakistan has good reason to punish spies. Even those who work for us. Thats really my point....whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    22. Re:...Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...they did so to remove the anti-American/European propaganda and replaced it with their own propaganda

      FTFY

    23. Re:...Huh? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Well I didn't state how much probablity I like.... but nothing is every certain unless you witnessed it (and even then, eye witness testimony is quite unreliable). Generally, I keep a pretty high standard. Hell I was even arguing that Zimmerman guy should be let go because there is no way to know what really happened.

      However, the nice thing about vigilante justice over state justice is that the state steals my money and claims to do it in my name. So when they fuck up, or malicously prosecute someone who did nothing wrong (like the aforementioned businessmen and indoor farmers) they do it with my money, and in my name. I really strongly dislike that.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    24. Re:...Huh? by lgw · · Score: 1

      However, in doing so he abused the trust of the community

      Isn't that pretty much the definition of a spy? But he's our spy, and that's the thing. Just as we should protect our soldiers to the practical best our our aability, we should protect other imporant assets in the fight.

      You don't play nice in war. It astounds my how many /.er's don't grok this. It's such a fundamental concept.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:...Huh? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That would be the dumbest thing you could possibly do. Ever hear of Ruby Ridge?

      As Sean Connery's character said in The Untouchables, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. You don't fight a military tank with a .22. Are you wearing Kevlar? The cops are.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    26. Re:...Huh? by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      Yeah. And here's another: the feds put someone in handcuffs and take them to jail, they call it an arrest, but if I do it they call it kidnapping! The hypocrisy! It's almost as though the government are allowed to do some things that members of the public aren't!

      --
      caritj.org
    27. Re:...Huh? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      what makes you think I don't understand? I understand full well, I just don't agree, and see what he did as something that deserves punishment, no matter why he did it, or who he did it for.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    28. Re:...Huh? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      That's what "they" say about "their" guys when they're arrested by "us". During the cold war, you'd only get your guy back if you had one of theirs to trade. Pakistan don't seem to have many spies in the US, so there's no leverage here...

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    29. Re:...Huh? by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

      Yes our government wont bomb a flight that your family would be on. The Terrorist however would be happy to kill you and your family without blinking. I don't find terrorism funny at all. But they would party in the streets on hearing of your plane exploding at 33 thousand feet.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    30. Re:...Huh? by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      Killing is against the law yet the government allows in during war. So yes our government can do things we cant get away with.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    31. Re:...Huh? by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      Actually its not a crime. For all our technology there isn't a way to just kill our enemies and not kill the civilians they hide behind.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    32. Re:...Huh? by tqk · · Score: 1

      A thing is illegal when the government says it is, and illegal when the government says it is.

      Is that hyperbole? Your legal system is supposed to define those. If it's not, then you've accepted that your government is utterly out of your control and the only moral and ethical action left to you is to lock and load. Vive la revolution.

      I hope you can limit it to D.C.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    33. Re:...Huh? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      I am still not sure how I feel about the federal government defacing websites, but I do know how I feel about vigilante justice. I am firmly against it, and I believe that this is what Anonymous is all about. I am OK with the feds releasing the proverbial hounds against Anonymous.

      If a Samoan police officer came round to your house and locked you up, that would be vigilante justice, because he has no right to act in your jurisdiction (I apologise if you are actually living in Samoa!)

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    34. Re:...Huh? by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

      If the civilian population without force aid the terrorist they themselves are also terrorist too don't ya think? During the WWars we bombed and killed hundreds and thousands of factory workers. Oh i forgot this isn't the GOOD war this is the dirty war.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    35. Re:...Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So there was no cheering when Afghanistan and Iraq was invaded? Enemies to each other usually cheer each others misfortune.

    36. Re:...Huh? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Yes our government wont bomb a flight that your family would be on.

      Yeah, pull the other one.. Oh wait, you're right. They just shoot them down, and then lie about it

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    37. Re:...Huh? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Any idea how many Pakistani families (or Afghani, or Iraqi) have been killed by American and Western bombs over the last decade?

      Don't be so self righteous. When it comes to war, nobody gets to come away innocent.

    38. Re:...Huh? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      There's an opinion piece in today's Illinois Times about that very subject.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    39. Re:...Huh? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'd be okay with it if Anonymous hacked terrorist websites instead of the websites of Western governments and businesses?

      Well, which is it do they or do they not want terrorist websites hacked?

    40. Re:...Huh? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Even when executing no-knock warrants, police are supposed to identify themselves as police while entering. Ever watch a police or SWAT show? They bust down the door, maybe toss in a flashbang, then enter and start yelling "Police!" They don't just break in, shoot you, handcuff you, then pull out their badge and go "oh, yeah, police"

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    41. Re:...Huh? by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      If a Samoan police officer came round to your house and locked you up, that would be vigilante justice, because he has no right to act in your jurisdiction (I apologise if you are actually living in Samoa!)

      I'm not sure what one has to do with another in this instance - especially given that I did not condone the federal government's actions.

      --

      -Turkey

    42. Re:...Huh? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It doesn't fucking matter.. Dead is dead...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    43. Re:...Huh? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      You said:

      our government wont bomb a flight that your family would be on.

      Who cares if your family gets bombed intentionally or accidentally? They're just as dead one way or the other. If my family were all killed in a hellish explosion, it would be little comfort to know that the people who planned it killed my family through indifference rather than malice. And in terms of numbers of civilians killed, NATO is well ahead of the terrorists in the Middle East.

    44. Re:...Huh? by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Yes our government wont bomb a flight that your family would be on.

      What about Iran Air Flight 655 - 3 July 1988 ?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

    45. Re:...Huh? by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      What did i say to you? Are You making a comment there is no difference between the Terrorist and our government? See the difference is our government doesn't TARGET civilians. Terrorist DO.

      What about those dozen or so people the US army lined up in the targets of their guns and blew to bits in Baghdad?
      They were all civilians, two were Reuters staff, two were children.

      http://collateralmurder.com/

      Of course we only know what was leaked, there are likely many more killings we don't know about. This shows a clear intent to murder civilians.

    46. Re:...Huh? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      My government is out of my control. Corporations determine what's legal and what's not, my vote is pretty much meaningles. That's why half the population doesn't even bother to vote, they realise that it's a waste of time and why I almost always vote third party ("none of the above").

      As to "lock and load," I'm a pacifist.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    47. Re:...Huh? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      That is an easy stance to take when you are not the Pakistanis. That excuse would never hold up in a court here. Not to mention that, before his extrajudicial killing, Mr Bin Laden had never been convicted of anything in a court of law.

      Never mind all of the victims of this doctor, who had their DNA taken by his fake clinics. Whether breaking the law was the right thing to do or not doesn't absolve them of those infractions.

      Funny the stance these people can take towards law and human rights when its convinent to do so. They wouldn't take the same stance if I just decided something was worth breaking their laws for.

      This entire war mentality is counterproductive, and regressive, and allows people to make excuses for abusing whoever they wish. I say prosecute him, and turn over the CIA agents involved for thier conspiracy.

      If it was worth abusing people to do, then its worth facing the punishment for having done it too.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    48. Re:...Huh? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1
      Well, you said:

      I am still not sure how I feel about the federal government defacing websites, but I do know how I feel about vigilante justice.

      My point was that the federal government defacing overseas websites is nothing more than vigilante justice. But then I discovered that wasn't what they were doing anyway, and it was just a bunch of comments on a blog or something. All rather pathetic.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    49. Re:...Huh? by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I saw the same thing...and realized that it was all meaningless, too. :)

      --

      -Turkey

    50. Re:...Huh? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Well I feel so enlightened now. Thanks for explaining that.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  4. Why was this made public? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These folk are usually extremely careful about the comments they make, so I wonder what the angle is here?

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Why was this made public? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Getting the President re-elected by deflecting criticism from the conservative right that he is not hard enough on terrorists...

    2. Re:Why was this made public? by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      Well, there's an election coming up. With Osama's death and Iraq supposedly dwindling down, they needed to make some statement to put a positive spin for their "War on Terror."

  5. Think of the Civilians! by imunfair · · Score: 1

    Seems like a pretty hypocritical message, considering all the civilians we've killed over there. In a place where we shouldn't even have military.

    1. Re:Think of the Civilians! by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seems like a pretty hypocritical message, considering all the civilians we've killed over there. In a place where we shouldn't even have military.

      The difference is the target and the intent. When we kill civilians, it's truly by accident. They usually die because a weapon malfunctioned or they were too close to a government building. We also tend to apologize for it and in many cases, notify the civilian population before an attack occurs.. In Iraq, for example, the goal was to free the people there from a tyrant.

      Of course, you may disagree with this, but if an Iraqi were to disagree with his government in 2001, they would die. They are free to disagree today. What makes you so special that you deserve freedoms like this and others don't? I served, by the way, not to give you freedoms. You already have them. I served, knowing full well that when I signed, I would be giving those that have not rights the very freedoms that you and I have.

      When Al Qaeda kills civilians, the civilians are the target. There is no warning before hand and no apology afterwards. The goal of Al Qaeda is not to free the population, but to convert or enslave them. If you are a Christian, Al Qaeda wants to you convert or die. If you are an atheist, Al Qaeda wants you to convert or die. If you are a Jew, Al Qaeda wants you to die.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:Think of the Civilians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When Al Qaeda kills civilians, the civilians are the target. There is no warning before hand and no apology afterwards. The goal of Al Qaeda is not to free the population, but to convert or enslave them. If you are a Christian, Al Qaeda wants to you convert or die. If you are an atheist, Al Qaeda wants you to convert or die. If you are a Jew, Al Qaeda wants you to die.

      Wait, can you provide citations for this stuff? I mean, the purpose of Al Quaeda actually is to free the population from the foreign opressors (which is the USA in fact, hence the whole attack against the symbol of power in the heart of their financial district)

      All this shit about them wanting to kill christans, jews and atheists? That is not what they are about, excepting that the muslim religion is officially against other religions (and don't forget that this sprang from its christian/jewish roots and is present there also) and you might consider that large part of why Al Quaeda is a muslim freedom movement is because the western powers have demonized the muslim nations in the first place, and they have no way to fight back except through guerilla warfare, conveniently labelled by folk like you as terrorism.

      I won't condone their behaviour, but I won't condone yours either. The only way out of this is via dialogue, and both parties have much to atone for and behaviour to change.

    3. Re:Think of the Civilians! by sribe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait, can you provide citations for this stuff? I mean, the purpose of Al Quaeda actually is to free the population from the foreign opressors (which is the USA in fact, hence the whole attack against the symbol of power in the heart of their financial district)

      So then, what exactly is the goal of a suicide bomber in a crowded market full of civilians? Why, exactly, would one need a "citation" to establish that the intent was to kill those civilians?

      Of course, if you want citations, Osama Bin Laden himself provided plenty... There really is no shortage, from all sides of al Qaeda, but I'm pretty sure you weren't actually interested.

      In other words, go fuck yourself.

    4. Re:Think of the Civilians! by houghi · · Score: 1

      So how would you feel if we would invade your country and brought some of our European Freedom?

      Freedom was also never the reason. Money (in this case oil) is the reason and freedom is the marketing part.

      If freedom would be the real reason, you would have freedom at home as well. You haven't. Companies have freedom, but you don't.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:Think of the Civilians! by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When we kill civilians, it's truly by accident.

      Bullshit. We know there is going to be "collateral damage" going in, and we go ahead and do it anyway. That's not "truly by accident".

      No, when the US kills civilians it knows exactly what it is doing. The powers that be have made a calculation that the benefits outweigh the costs, that's all. The only real question is who actually benefits and who pays the costs.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Think of the Civilians! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      So how would you feel if we would invade your country and brought some of our European Freedom?

      Freedom was also never the reason. Money (in this case oil) is the reason and freedom is the marketing part.

      If freedom would be the real reason, you would have freedom at home as well. You haven't. Companies have freedom, but you don't.

      Well, let's see:
      Obama is a butthead! Mohammed is a child molester. Moses was a traitor to the Pharaohs that cared for him! Jesus liked wine and traveled with a bunch of guys he repeatedly claimed to love wearing in robes with no visible means of income! Buddha was FAT! Confucius smoked opium! I think I will/will not go to church this weekend. I might even protest while I'm there.

      Yep! Still got my freedoms. No one is knocking at the door. My wife and kids are not being tortured. I'm not being dragged to the desert to add to some mass grave.

      What do you mean I have no freedoms?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    7. Re:Think of the Civilians! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      When we kill civilians, it's truly by accident.

      Bullshit. We know there is going to be "collateral damage" going in, and we go ahead and do it anyway. That's not "truly by accident".

      No, when the US kills civilians it knows exactly what it is doing. The powers that be have made a calculation that the benefits outweigh the costs, that's all. The only real question is who actually benefits and who pays the costs.

      Bullshit! We attack building late at night as to limit those causalities. We spend TRILLIONS to develop weapons that will only destroy the designated target with as little collateral damage as possible. We have literally passed on targets because of the risk of civilian casualties.

      Fact is, we hold back. We hold back A LOT! Could you imagine what the casualties if we truly didn't care like you say? For starters, there would be zero American casualties. Next, we would save a fortune in transportation and maintenance of equipment, plus the long term health care costs from soldiers injured. All it would take is for the president to punch in some codes and give the go ahead for a full scale nuclear attack. BAM! Problem solved. Even if the leadership survived in a bunker, it will be about 10000 years before they can safely come up for air. Even if we were to resist a nuclear strike, there would be nothing Iraq could do to keep us from carpet bombing any city with 2000 pound bombs from one end of the city to the other until nothing was left standing.

      Instead, we gave our blood and treasure to go out of our way to NOT kill civilians. And you still believe we are the same as Al Qaeda, who hijacked a plane full of men, women and children and flew them into civilian buildings, no matter how much evidence you run across that proves you are wrong. Was Al Qaeda worried about collateral damage? Actually, "collateral damage" is the wrong term BECAUSE CIVILIANS WERE THE TARGETS!!!!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    8. Re:Think of the Civilians! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      When you declare pre-emptive war on a country which has not attacked you

      They fired on US personnel monitoring compliance with UN resolutions. They tried to assassinate a former US head of state. They attacked our allies. They filled mass graves with the bodies of women and children.

      You know, come to think of it, Germany never attacked us either. What business did we have entering WWII?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    9. Re:Think of the Civilians! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      But on the other hand, "there is no compunction in Islam", or however your preferred translation words it....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    10. Re:Think of the Civilians! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      The difference is the target and the intent. When we kill civilians, it's truly by accident.

      The US and the UK between us manage to kill more civilians than enemy combatants, and we appear to kill more enemy combatants than we lose of our own guys.

      It may be by accident, but it's because we're not willing to risk our own guys -- we value them over civilians, which is the wrong way round, if we're genuinely supposed to be the "good guys".

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    11. Re:Think of the Civilians! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Ahaha yeah right.

      Tell that to the girls in India and Egypt who are Hindu or Christian respectively as they're kidnapped from their families, forcibly covered and married off. No compulsion my ass, don't be ignorant of the world.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    12. Re:Think of the Civilians! by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      When we kill civilians, it's truly by accident. ... We also tend to apologize for it and in many cases,

      (With all due respect) -- Bullshit and Bullshit
      While I agree that US does not target civilians, there is not enough of a review process (well, we don't really know who reviews) and there are certainly no apologies. Last I heard, the official position vacillates between "there is no drone program" to "the drone program is very precise, there is no collateral damage" and, finally, Obama's "Look, we really kill very few good people by accident, it's mostly bad guys"
      They barely admit that collateral damage exists. No one had ever apologized or explained how future collateral damage is being prevented. Because there is no drone program and the drone strikes are so accurate that there is no collateral damage.

    13. Re:Think of the Civilians! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      I didn't say "bad things don't happen", I was simply responding to the GP's nonsense about "true Muslims".

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    14. Re:Think of the Civilians! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Kindly go suicide bomb an empty field.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    15. Re:Think of the Civilians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fact is, we hold back. We hold back A LOT!

      Ah... bravo! Congratulations on not nuking the entire planet for looking at you the wrong way, aka pre-emptive war.

      "Ya know, I could have killed the entire school full of children, but I only killed a couple. I held back A LOT!!!"

      Land of the fucking paranoid sociopaths.

    16. Re:Think of the Civilians! by gaspar+ilom · · Score: 2
      Oh, please. If the U.S. really cared about tyrants, we stop propping-up the brutal & corrupt Al Saud "royal" family dictatorship, in "Saudi" Arabia?

      >In Iraq, for example, the goal was to free the people there from a tyrant.

      Wasn't it supposed to be about WMDs?

    17. Re:Think of the Civilians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      PS - Germany declared war on the US.

      Fuck you yanks are dumbshits.

      Finish your history lesson on wikipedia please....

    18. Re:Think of the Civilians! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      But they call themselves "true muslims" see the problem already?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    19. Re:Think of the Civilians! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      So then, what exactly is the goal of a suicide bomber in a crowded market full of civilians?

      REVENGE, usually for the death of a loved one and usually perpetrated by teenagers, they are picked and groomed for the job in pretty much the same way runaways to hollywood are picked and groomed by pimps.

      BTW, what was the point of firebombing Dressden if not to kill civilians?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    20. Re:Think of the Civilians! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      The only problem I see here is that you didn't read what I was responding to and jumped in with a completely orthogonal argument. The AC said that you have to kill to be a true muslim, not that people who kill call themselves true muslims. Can we stick to one bigoted troll argument at a time? I'm fairly intelligent and fairly patient, but trying to keep track of two concurrent threads of prejudice.dll is a little too much for my primitive task scheduler....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  6. Re:USA contradicts itself every step of the way... by m1ndcrash · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh yeah. The "electronic jihad" email will look somewhat like this: This is electronic jihad! Unfortunately we suck at it, so dear infidel delete all files on your computer yourself. Thanks, 4£-Q43Ð4.

  7. So, when does... by dnaumov · · Score: 1

    ... Yemen request the extradition of the US citizens responcible for this crime?

  8. Hacked the folks they are shooting at ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The feds hack a website, and they issue a triumphant press release. Anonymous does it, and they release the hounds.

    The feds hacked the websites of an organization they are actively at war with, literally at war as in bullets and bombs. That is not quite the same as what Anonymous is doing.

    1. Re:Hacked the folks they are shooting at ... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      What I can't understand is why they didn't pretend this was the work of an independent hacker. They wouldn't reveal this without thinking so there must be a reason.

      I'm guessing it's down to one of the founding principles of terrorist strategy: provoke an overreaction from your enemy so that you can prove they're the bad guys. The US presumably wants people in the Middle East to be outraged so that they can paint them all as dangerous terrorists. They're gambling on their citizens seeing it as a reasonable action on their part, and judging by some of the tub-thumping going on here, it's a safe bet.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  9. Electronic Jihad How-To by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Funny

    Also this week, a statement from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs revealed the presence an Al-Qaeda video calling for 'Electronic Jihad.'

    In the video, they recommend fighting this in a traditional manner like suicide bombing. First you tape up with explosives, then sit at a computer, then log into a US website visited by millions of users daily and detonate your vest -- thereby sending all of those heathenish packets of Western information to hell.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  10. They didn't 'hack' a website. by Brewster+Jennings · · Score: 4, Informative

    "State Department officials recently carried out a counter-propaganda campaign on Web sites being used by al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, challenging the group’s anti-American rhetoric with information about civilians killed in terrorist strikes, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday" They posted responses on website forums for Tribal sites in Afghanistan. So, unless you believe that countering nonsense is hacking, then no, they didn't hack anything. If you do, though, that means that *this* post is hacking, which I'm pretty sure creates a paradox that destroys the cosmos as we know it.

    1. Re:They didn't 'hack' a website. by game+kid · · Score: 1

      Yeah; currently article says *clears throat*

      Correction: This is a corrected version of an article that mischaracterized the nature of a State Department campaign to counter al-Qaeda propaganda. A previous version incorrectly said that cyber experts had hacked into al-Qaeda sites to substitute the group’s advertisements with alternatives. U.S. officials did post the alternative versions on the sites, but they did not engage in “hacking,” a term that generally refers to gaining access to a site or server without authorization in order to alter or steal content.

      So if I'm comprendiendo this, al-Q posted a bunch of rah-rah posters and the State Dept posted "al-Q-is-EVILZ" versions on the same forums, but did not use l33t h4x to break into anything to make the posts. Not very much to write home about.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    2. Re:They didn't 'hack' a website. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Oh my god.

      You mean this story is seriously about the State Department posting forum spam?

      Truly we have entered a new digital age.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re:They didn't 'hack' a website. by Brewster+Jennings · · Score: 1

      Okay, so, I want to start off with an apology if I sounded like I was jumping down people's throats. When I loaded the page with the story, the bastards at the WashPo had changed the story, but hadn't stuck the Correction banner in yet. So, erm... yeah. The casual use of the word hacking by 22-year-old journalists who think Swordfish is real drives me crazy.

    4. Re:They didn't 'hack' a website. by Brewster+Jennings · · Score: 1

      Change languages?

    5. Re:They didn't 'hack' a website. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      "comprendiendo" is not an English word. That's probably what he's talking about.

      It's a stupid poke, yes... I'm just pointing out what he was poking at.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:They didn't 'hack' a website. by shuttah · · Score: 1

      The speech by Hillary Clinton took place on Wednesday, May 23rd at a Gala event at the Special Operations Command in Tampa, FL. Her speech was transcribed by the State Department (as all of her speeches are), and the transcription is hosted at the State Department's website.

      I've re-hosted the original article by Karen DeYoung and Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post.

      I can't say i'm surprised The Washington Post completely misinterpreted a government official's speech, but the conclusions these writers jumped to, and i fell for, certainly carry more brevity than the conclusions found in your everyday newspaper article.

      This is why i usually prefer CSPAN. But i will certainly look a bit more into detail about each article i find interesting before i post it here.

      Sorry about that, folks.

  11. Oh for the love of god by multicoregeneral · · Score: 1

    This is what they're wasting my tax money on today? Jesus. Why not ddos them, or post a hate blog while they're at it?

    --
    This signature intentionally left blank.
  12. A redirect by lee+n.+field · · Score: 1

    substituting the group's anti-American rhetoric with information about civilians killed in terrorist strikes.

    A redirect to whitehouse.com might be more effective.

  13. What a wasted opportunity by Honest+Man · · Score: 1

    Okay, I understand why they did it but what a wasted opportunity. Why not quietly add a hidden pixel on the website and semi secretly track all the ip's and timestamps of visitors to their site. Lots of information to glean from that....

  14. Why have the government do this? by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

    Why can't the government just say "American computer scientists are welcome to penetrate any computer system being used by Al-Qaeda or other organizations on the Terror Watch List. Please feel free to intercept or disrupt any of their method of communication. You will not be prosecuted for any actions taken against Terrorist groups."

    Instead of playing Diablo III, my buddies and I could have "Hack North Korea" parties.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:Why have the government do this? by a90Tj2P7 · · Score: 1

      For the same reason the police don't go "Hey, everybody, there's a bank robber on the loose, come by the station and borrow a gun". Idiots are going to start shooting at anyone wearing a hooded sweatshirt and will be putting themselves in harm's way. Most people aren't going to understand what is and isn't a target, they're not going to understand what they can't and can't do, they're not going to be organized, and most of them probably aren't anywhere near as skilled as they think they are. And aside from being untrained, inexperienced and uncoordinated, getting involved would make you a legal military target instead of a civilian. Not that al Qaeda's really worried about that, but still, international law would say that an enemy going after you would be no different from and no less legitimate than killing an enemy soldier in battle.

    2. Re:Why have the government do this? by a90Tj2P7 · · Score: 1

      what they can* and can't do

    3. Re:Why have the government do this? by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      To avoid confusion, any organization that is on the Terror Watch List is a valid target. I'm not saying that they will necessarily be effective. Essentially it becomes one of those "We will not prosecute you for it" kind of things. If people want to assume the risk, that is their choice.

      And you are right, terrorists aren't exactly worried about military v. civilian targets, as is evident by the fact that they are terrorists. As far as nation-state folks, that becomes a lot more of a gray area. Last class I had on the Geneva Conventions did not cover anything remotely related to cyber issues. But to be fair, how many Chinese hackers try to penetrate U.S. systems of a daily basis? Last time I heard a number from a government organization, it was in the thousands of attempts per day. I don't see China stopping their state-sponsored schools of cyber-espionage. Why should we handcuff ourselves?

      On a side note, I mainly mention this because I know the leadership of the Army's section of US Cyber Command (not GEN Alexander, but his subordinates), and I also happen to know they are complete morons. It would take them 45 minutes to get out of a Chinese Finger Trap (pun intended).

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
  15. Religion and Empire by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Twin killing machines joined at the hip.

  16. True Hack or Social Engineering by codepunk · · Score: 1

    More likely the CIA called the server owner and said, "give me root or I keeeeeel you!"

    --


    Got Code?
  17. Better get used to these announcements by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    It's campaign season in the US.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  18. Cyber Experts by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    Anyone called a "Cyber Expert" is more likely to mistake editing a wiki page as a "hack"

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  19. The state department tore down a poster by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Hung up by Al Quaeda.

    1. Re:The state department tore down a poster by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Closer to what actually happened: The State Department hung up some of their posters next to Al-Q(however you spell it)'s

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  20. Not quite true by antonymous · · Score: 3, Informative

    What actually happened was that the State Department purchased some anti-Al-Qaeda ads to run when certain key terms were also on the screen, similar to how AdWords works. It's a pretty interesting concept, really - the necessity of displaying advertising on a site can open the door for alternative messages/realities to reach the viewer.

    1. Re:Not quite true by selil · · Score: 2

      Exactly. Clinton never said they hacked anything. One news agency ran with the hacking story, and over 12 hours ago they already were reporting that it was "buying advertisements". Not that reality, facts, or truth should ever be used in these situations. Even the Washington Post has changed their story http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-hacks-web-sites-of-al-qaeda-affiliate-in-yemen/2012/05/23/gJQAGnOxlU_story.html but don't let that stop anybody.

      --
      --- Location Unknown
  21. I'm suprised by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

    no one posted the Obligitory XKCD. http://xkcd.com/932/

  22. Define Al-Queda Affiliate by Bigsquid.1776 · · Score: 1

    Al-Queda Affiliate: Any group of two or more Muslims that express a dislike for the United States, a publicly traded corporation, the United Kingdom, Germany or France.

  23. Re:Which I would prefer. by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    The US establishment has done deals with many shady organisations in the past. The Iraqi Ba'ath Party. The Taliban. Iran Contra. etc etc ad nauseum. That never turned out well in the long run. Why should supporting a global network of unidentified hackers (who aren't all the best fans of US policy, particularly with regards to computer crime) be any better an idea?

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  24. Re:USA contradicts itself every step of the way... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    The problem is that you can only wage war against another sovereign government. Terrorists aren't soldiers, they're just criminals, and should be dealt with by the justice system, not the military.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  25. So how much did we pay.. by ddd0004 · · Score: 1

    to rickroll an Al-Qaeda group? Forget it, it's worth it.

  26. Electronic Jihad by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

    So, like FPS deathmatches ?.. Why not, that way you can infidels many times over and over.. surely better than the real thing.

    --
    waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    1. Re:Electronic Jihad by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      that way you can infidels many times over

      You jihad a word.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Electronic Jihad by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      Yes I a word for sure.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
  27. Re:Jihad needs to go away. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    mod this AC up for truthiness.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  28. The USA is a flawed but generally good country by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    Absolutely. The USA may have made mistakes (such as using atom bombs against Japanese men, women and children - see http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html), but it is not even close to the level of evil seen in the Soviet Union, the PRC, or Al Qaeda.

    Speaking of Islamic terrorism: do you know of any studies/argumentations about the likelihood of
    Iran using atom bombs against Israel? There are 1,573,000 Israeli Arabs and 1,240,000 Israeli Muslims (many, but not all, of the Arabs are Muslims) - not counting the people in the Palestinian territories that are not Israel citizens.
    Would Iran really kill countless innocent Muslim civilians, including women and children?
    I mean, Ahmadinejad may be a buffoon, but AFAIK he is no Hitler and no Stalin.
    I would like to see this debated.

  29. What about civilians killed in US strikes? by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 1

    Did they share that information as well?

  30. It’s still an ACT OF WAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, the Al-Qaeda is evil. But from most of the world's standpoint, the US is even worse. (They killed hundrets of times as many people. Let alone all the meddling with foreign governments and secret prisons.)

    So just as much as Al-Qaeda, backed by Pakistan's government, hacking US government websites, would be considered an act of war... ...this is also an act of war.

    It's just that apparently, the ultra bully gets away with it...

  31. Samzenpus fails again by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Anyone familiar with what is going on knows that no hacking was involved. The State Department is paying people to post to the web sites in question to counter the Al-Qaeda propaganda.

    Even NPR was smart enough to blatantly state this was not hacking. Why is slashdot so out of touch with such a basic technology story?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  32. I guess times have changed by elfuzzo · · Score: 1

    If the websites are hosted on servers in the US, then I concede all rights are essentially lost in regards into what "the man" can do do your stuff - anything goes in the name of homeland paranoia... err, security. But in the mid-90s, even though there were known to be broadcasting hate propaganda and encouraging genocide, countries were worried about the legal issues involved in treading on Rwanda's sovereignty and chose not to jam the transmissions of RTLM radio. These days, the same countries have no problems hacking foreign websites. I'm aware there are some differences (the Hutus weren't targeting Americans), but I guess now that a Patriot Act exists then anything goes... Hell, the US feds had to be taken to court so people could understand how they might choose interpret the laws they make - http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/11/2234233/nytimes-sues-us-govt-to-know-how-it-interprets-the-patriot-act

  33. Re:Yemen Al-Qaeda Web Sites Staffed by US DoS by gselfridge · · Score: 1

    haha frk'in ha!

  34. Don't you just love Cyberspace? by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

    It's a world of three-dimensional grids, where random digits float around you in neon green,and you must find a representation of a door- a Backdoor- to hack the Gibson.

    Srsly wtf is up with "cyber experts"?Did they study the cyber for long?

    --
    Defining Statistics and Social Research
  35. ya right, lets blow the Op by BigLonn · · Score: 1

    yeah lets make it official, loose lips blow OPS, Way to go Hilary!