Slashdot Mirror


Ohio Government Websites Hacked With Pro-Islamic State Messages (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Bloomberg: The websites of Ohio Governor John Kasich and other state government agencies were hacked on Sunday with a posting professing love for the jihadist group Islamic State. Ten state websites and two servers were affected, and they've been taken off line for an investigation with law enforcement into how the hackers were able to deface them, said Tom Hoyt, a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Administrative Services... The same pro-Islamic State message, accompanied by music, were also shown on Sunday on the website of Brookhaven, a town on New York's Long Island about 50 miles (80 kilometers) from Manhattan, the New York Post reported... Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2018, posted on Facebook that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction website had been hacked and said, "Wake up freedom-loving Americans. Radical Islam infiltrating the heartland."

207 comments

  1. Hell of a way to fight a war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will destroy all infidelds! :we respect your religious differences and welcome you to our country. want some free shit?

    1. Re:Hell of a way to fight a war... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Fighting a "war" is not necessarily the best way of winning it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Sharia law will now be implemented. Death to the infidels!

    Seriously, if you're worried about anything infiltrating the heartland, try Meth-heads and opiates from whatever pharmacy they have there.

    1. Re:THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I'd like to make a joke about how hacking Ohio is only a step above defacing a road sign in Mississippi, one can't dismiss the possibility of there being some thought behind that statement.

      There's got to be a handful of somewhat unhinged sorts in the midwest states would just love to shoot a terrorist. If as is often claimed the Islamic State really does have the goal of causing friction between Muslims and everyone else, if they could sow enough paranoia to spark a repeat of the Kansas shooting, then they'd be quite happy no doubt.

      So yes, it is possible they're bluffing, or at least one would hope, but it is also possible that's all they need to do. It's like online trolling in a way. It is up to us to tell them to go fuck themselves and hope no one is dumb enough to take their bait.

    2. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by oobayly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I personally believe that that's their aim - to cause a divide between Muslims and non-Muslims.

      Take the UK, we just had a Welsh bloke hire a van and drive it down to London to run over Muslims outside a mosque. It's highly likely that he got the idea from the recent attacks in London, which is somewhat ironic. Yet the same people who were [correctly] disgusted with Muslims celebrating terrorist attacks we sharing joke's about Ramavan van rental offers. It's turned into "them and us" and plays directly into the fanatics' hands.

      Same goes for Egypt and Tunisia. Both countries relied hugely on tourism, which had now understandably decreased. The result is that there will be a generation who won't have an income and will be ripe pickings for terrorist indoctrination.

      It's difficult to believe that this tactic works - surely they should see that their community is being ostracised (and even attacked) because of their "brethren" - but for some reason it does. I guess it's easier to blame strangers than the person who pretends to want to help (even though they're the ones that caused the problems in the first place).

    3. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And to this day, there's zero evidence that they have. Terrorist attacks in those countries have been perpetrated by people either born and raised in Europe, or who have been living there for decades. Not "refugees", or even refugees.

    4. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      To be fair. They were Muslims of an extremists nature for the most part, who grew up in the West but never really assimilated. Your argument is "Everything is fine. Lets keep moving quickly and breaking everything. What could possibly go wrong?"

      The kick the can on down the raod model has served us well this far hasn't it?

    5. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by aliquis · · Score: 4, Informative

      And to this day, there's zero evidence that they have. Terrorist attacks in those countries have been perpetrated by people either born and raised in Europe, or who have been living there for decades. Not "refugees", or even refugees.

      False statement.

      Not that I think the offspring of failed immigration politics and multiculturalism being the problem would offer any support & defense for continuing with or doing it in the first place.

      Here in Sweden we've just had just a few attacks.
      2010 Taimour Abdulwahab blew a car and himself up in Stockholm. Born in Baghdad, Iraq.
      2015 Abraham Ukbagabir stabbed two Swedes to death at IKEA after not being granted asylum, born in Eritrea.
      2017 Rakhmat Akilov drew a truck through people in Stockholm, born in Uzbekistan.

      So ... what does that make them? I don't know if the second one would be a jihadist though, his claimed reason (and who can't understand him?) for doing it was that "everyone else got to stay" and since he wasn't he was "treated unfairly" so he wanted to show that.

      I think you need to try again, Mr/Ms AC SJW dishonest lying fuck-face.

      I'm not going to sit and google all the terror attacks in Europe.
      Checked the Charlie Hebdo attackers and those where born in France, but by Algerian parents. Doesn't really make things better .. May very well be that refugees are better than their children due to how shitty multiculturalism and the destruction of our nations and people are but that just mean that there's worse to come from the shit-politics which is the Muslim and African invasion of Europe. Doesn't help.

      But you're wrong when claim all of them has been born here.

    6. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Bongo · · Score: 2

      I personally believe that that's their aim - to cause a divide between Muslims and non-Muslims.

      Yes I gather vaguely that's what happened in Lebanon. But for it to "work" there needs to be a lot of youth who are ready to form militias along clan lines and take their "honour" codes seriously and feel they personally must go out and fuck up other people.

      I think a reason that does not work in the West is that the "leviathan" is stronger -- the state is seen as the legitimate owner of violence and control, and most people just want to let the law and the police and army deal with problems.

      Consequently these "provocations" go on and on and on but apart from a few idiots here and there, nothing happens.

      It is mostly just fodder for endless editorials in the papers over whether this or that is "raising islamophobia" and so on. Ie. it is more entertainment to sell papers.

      Basically, we goddess heathens in the West just don't give a fuck. Excuse my French. And that is kinda our, what do you call it, nobility?
      Two major world wars and we are not interested in fighting anymore.

    7. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Basically, we goddess heathens...

      I've never been likened to as a goddess. I've had UK border security agree that I looked like a thug in my passport photo*, but never a goddess - thank you for the confidence boost :-)

      * A friend was driving another friend's car and she couldn't find the electric window button, so I passed him the 4 passports from the back seat. He saw us talking the piss out of the driver so realised we were up for a laugh.
      Official: Oh dear (Upon seeing my photo)
      Me: Yes, I tried looking like a thug that day
      Official: Well you succeeded sir

    8. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but we catch them one by one already. And the other war criminals from all sides. We catch them just like Pokémon.

    9. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Bongo · · Score: 1

      :-D

    10. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Desler · · Score: 1

      Checked the Charlie Hebdo attackers and those where born in France, but by Algerian parents. Doesn't really make things better

      Translation: When evidence disagrees with you you'll dismiss. Gotta keep the cognitive dissonance going.

    11. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Sweden we've just had just a few attacks.
      2010 Taimour Abdulwahab blew a car and himself up in Stockholm. Born in Baghdad, Iraq.
      2015 Abraham Ukbagabir stabbed two Swedes to death at IKEA after not being granted asylum, born in Eritrea.
      2017 Rakhmat Akilov drew a truck through people in Stockholm, born in Uzbekistan.

      That's only three incidents in seven years, two innocents dead, some other hurt. That is statistically nothing.

      You all need to get a grip. I'll bet more people were killed by bee stings during that time period.

      If you lived in a war zone and a half million of your fellow citizens were killed then I'm you'd have something to complain about. I'll bet you would be one of the ones who'd want to strap on a bomb and get even, right?

    12. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally believe that that's their aim - to cause a divide between Muslims and non-Muslims.

      You don't have to just believe it, they've straight-up told us:

      The attack had “further [brought] division to the world,” the group said, boasting that it had polarized society and “eliminated the grayzone,” representing coexistence between religious groups. As a result, it said, Muslims living in the West would soon no longer be welcome in their own societies. Treated with increasing suspicion, distrust and hostility by their fellow citizens as a result of the deadly shooting, Western Muslims would soon be forced to “either apostatize or they [migrate] to the Islamic State, and thereby escape persecution from the crusader governments and citizens,” the group stated, while threatening of more attacks to come.

      Islamic State’s Goal: “Eliminating the Grayzone” of Coexistence Between Muslims and the West

      So yeah, it turns out the islamofoes are actually terrorist collaborators.

    13. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by not+flu · · Score: 1

      Okay what were the other people who got killed guilty of if they weren't innocent? Being swedish?

    14. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Sweden is having difficulty integrating asylum seekers and immigrants into their society. It has increased crime, and prompted my in-laws to move out of Gothenburg.

      Sweden doesn't have a terrorism problem, but unless they solve the economic and integration issues they might in a decade or three.

    15. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you lived in a war zone and a half million of your fellow citizens were killed then I'm you'd have something to complain about. I'll bet you would be one of the ones who'd want to strap on a bomb and get even, right?

      Uh, no, no I wouldn't. We've had plenty of war refugees in the past who didn't want to 'get even' either.

    16. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This tactic works because western media makes it work. The disproportionately hysterical reporting on Jihadi hate crimes vs. other groups' hate crimes, e.g. far-right/alt-right white supremacist groups, make this abundantly clear. Additionally, the way that Muslim characters are portrayed in film and TV fuels the fire of ignorance, bigotry, and religious hatred. We may pat ourselves on our backs for things like women's rights, LGBTQ rights, etc. (which are good things in and of themselves) but we haven't moved much since the middle ages on the subject of religious and cultural tolerance and integration. Extreme Salafi/Wahabi groups like ISIS are simply acting out a very small role created for them by western media. They can make a massive impact on the public with very small actions.

    17. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have yet to see a gay character in a movie who isn't a lipstick lesbian or dying of AIDS.

    18. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take the UK, we just had a Welsh bloke hire a van and drive it down to London to run over Muslims outside a mosque. It's highly likely that he got the idea from the recent attacks in London, which is somewhat ironic.

      He'll get properly sentenced for it, though: that's cultural appropriation, that is.

    19. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Translation: When evidence disagrees with you you'll dismiss. Gotta keep the cognitive dissonance going.

      No you socialist scum-bag.

      I've never said they all where refugees.

      He's claimed they never were though. Which is wrong.

      I know the children of immigrants grow up with confused identities hating society and become criminals and maybe terrorists. I'm not denying it but I don't think that's great and make immigration from shit-cultures any better.

    20. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      That's only three incidents in seven years, two innocents dead, some other hurt. That is statistically nothing.

      He claimed NO EVIDENCE.

      Having a single one which contradict that is enough.
      The intention was never to make statistics over terrorist attacks in Europe. The intention was to show that no, they hadn't not all been brought up in Europe. Which he claimed.

      You all need to get a grip. I'll bet more people were killed by bee stings during that time period.

      No idea, doesn't matter. Heck, more people could had been killed by national-socialists and it still wouldn't matter. The numbers are what they are and the shit which are the immigrants are also what they are.

      I'll bet you would be one of the ones who'd want to strap on a bomb and get even, right?

      At-least not unless I would be dying anyhow.

    21. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's difficult even for white Westerners to integrate in Sweden.

      I've lived here over ten years, am a naturalised citizen, but I still get treated like an outsider because my Swedish isn't of native calibre. Much different from English-speaking countries (I'm from the US, lived some years in Australia before coming to Europe, and have spent a fair amount of time in the UK) where so many different regional and foreign-born accents are heard that nobody really gives a damn.

    22. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We may pat ourselves on our backs for things like women's rights, LGBTQ rights, etc. (which are good things in and of themselves) but we haven't moved much since the middle ages on the subject of religious and cultural tolerance and integration.

      We don't generally burn people alive for belonging to a different sect any more. I'd call that an improvement.

    23. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "shit-cultures"

      Excuse me but your racism is showing.

    24. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you even tried wearing one of those helmets with horns on? No, I bet you haven't.

    25. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by aliquis · · Score: 2

      your racism is showing

      Yeah of course it does.
      I speak don't I?
      Why are you communist dictator trolls hiding behind AC? I thought showing ones identity was sooooo important. Is it because you are so few/just one person?

      Anyway, claiming it's "racist" isn't a counter-argument. Just a request for censorship of my ideas. You've got nothing.

      Garbage.

    26. Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! by aliquis · · Score: 0

      I WANT my racism to show.
      I want lots of it to show.
      I'll work for it.
      You don't. Your problem.

  3. Re:Blame the Obama courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    This is why I own guns and have a carry permit. If any of those motherfuckers come near me, I'll ventilate them. ISIS don't want none of what I've got to give.

  4. Show of Weakness by muphin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are so pathetic now, they had armies, weapons, even an income.... now they are all but ghosts; now the only way to get some attention is to hack websites...
    Their message is lost, their mission is a failure... all they have now is some semblence of hope those virgins that they were promised... arent male!

    --
    It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
    1. Re:Show of Weakness by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      ...all they have now is some semblence of hope those virgins that they were promised... arent male!

      Some of them might actually prefer that, you know. I'd much rather they ended up with 72 nuns with shotguns.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Show of Weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      "They are so pathetic now, they had armies, weapons, even an income"

      Ghandi did not have those things and yet had a strong mission and message.

      Go through the airport lately?
      Fingerprinted you say?

      Seems like they won a long time ago.

    3. Re:Show of Weakness by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      ...and also they'll be burning in hell. Other than that, yeah, good luck.

    4. Re:Show of Weakness by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I bet it's not really ISIS, but a troll who either gets off scaring people, or wants to trigger war, hate, etc.

    5. Re:Show of Weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and also they'll be burning in hell. Other than that, yeah, good luck.

      Probably not. Just take the Abrahamic religions:

      If Jews are right, there is no hell to go to.

      If Christians are right, all they have to say is "I'm sorry, I was doing it for God and now I see I was led astray." and they get to go to heaven.

      If Muslims are right, they will be welcomed as heroes.

    6. Re:Show of Weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's not really ISIS. Anyone who seriously thought for a moment that it might be ISIS is a bit gullible, to put it mildly.

    7. Re:Show of Weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At least the knife and truck attacks in Europe are actually horrible, but if the best the terrorists can manage most of the time is to find a handful of losers willing to rent a truck and drive it into people, or buy a few knives and stab a few people before getting shot by the police forces a few minutes later, then the security services must be doing some things right. There's always room for improvement (like actually doing something when a community reports people with violent intent), but the terrorists must be pretty constrained if that's what they usually manage.

      Websites? Let them waste their time while everyone except that hyperbolic political candidate laughs at it. Next that guy will be saying "the hacker 4chan" is yet another terrifying threat to the heartland.

    8. Re:Show of Weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know that there are 1.8 BILLION Muslims in the world and that Islam is the fastest growing religion ?
      I'm not afraid that the U.S. will become an Islamic theocracy anytime soon, but we ignore the trend at our own peril. Islam is a global force to be reckoned with and it's getting more powerful.

    9. Re:Show of Weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their message is lost, their mission is a failure... all they have now is some semblence of hope those virgins that they were promised

      Tell that to the Evangelicals who also want Jesus to come back by packing all the Jewish people into Israel. ISIS wants to fight in some specific valley with the army of the Pope (or Rome) so that an Anti-Christ can wake up somewhere north from Iran and drive the remaining forces of 5000 into Jerusalem where the final battle is fought and Jesus comes back. A true believer never concedes failure.

    10. Re:Show of Weakness by hey! · · Score: 2

      That's all assuming this is ISIS behind this.

      Hacking US state government websites is definitely something ISIS would do if it could. But it's also something other people would do just for the reaction it would get. There are plenty of chaosmongers who are out to get the biggest reaction they can; "This is ISIS, perpare to die," is going to raise a much bigger stink than "Nyah, nyah, you've been hacked luser."

      In a way that works with ISIS's playbook; they're a tiny force about the size of two US National Guard divisions that relies on asymmetric warfare tactics to survive. Their political significance outside their immediate territory is dependent on social media savvy and inspiring disaffected locals to keep their name in the news. That poses a real (although statistically tiny) danger around the world.

      But hacking a state government website is pure PR. It doesn't mean they're poised to sweep into the US and impose Sharia Law, nor does it mean they've got an active cell operating in the affected state. All it means is that that state government does a lousy job securing its websites; a single person could have done this from his parent's basement, anywhere in the world. And, in a way, the politicians in that state who are responsible for the operations of state government are playing into ISIS's hands too. They'd much rather whip up a public panic than face questions about why their systems are so poorly secured, and the also-very real (and non-trivial) privacy risk this poses for citizens.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Doesn't anyone find that odd? Describing the U.S. as "heartland?" It sounds more like a conservative hacker pretending to be a stereotype to start something. Reminds me of one of the truck driver hostage videos about 5-6 years ago (may have been longer than that). Days, maybe weeks, of capture and the guy was cleanly shaven and in full marine gear, including his Oakley sunglasses. You can't YouTube that stuff anymore, and I don't think it's a coincidence either. A paradigm shifts towards the other half of a dichotomy brought by hate and now, the legitimacy of those things start to be questioned. I'll get down voted or flagged out of existence, but at least think about the first part of what I said before it does. Heartland? Give me a break.

    1. Re: Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And unless they describe themselves as "Radical Islam," add that to the list too, unless it's meant for sarcasm.

    2. Re: Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by oobayly · · Score: 2

      It wouldn't really suprise me. On one side we have daesh lunatics who want to start a convict between Muslims and non-Muslims. On the other side we have a crazy bunch of people that think "that's a really good idea".

      Meanwhile the vast majority of the world are stuck in the middle saying "fuck no, leave us out of this"

    3. Re:Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The hackers didn't use that word. That word comes from a tweet by the Ohio State Treasurer, who is, surprisingly enough, a Republican.

    4. Re: Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by jez9999 · · Score: 2

      Actually, most of the world that has had personal experience dealing with Islam is in that "crazy bunch of people" category. It's only some in the West who haven't figured out yet that they don't have a choice whether to be in conflict or not.

    5. Re:Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by wvmarle · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That "heartland" remark is from a US Republican politician, according to both TFS and the first linked article. I do understand that it's sometimes hard to distinguish between IS militants and GOP militants, but there is a difference. Or at least I think there is. There is a difference, right?

    6. Re: Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by wvmarle · · Score: 0

      My primary experiences with Islam is related to some mosques I visited on holidays (impressive buildings), and what I hear in the news about Islamic terrorism and the like (pretty horrible).

      My primary experience with Muslims on the other hand, is a whole different one. Perfectly normal people, and I strongly suspect I've dealt with many more Muslims than I know of. After all, in most cases you just can't tell from looking at a person which religion they follow. I estimate close to 10% of the population here is Muslim. No issues with them.

      Then I should add my primary experience with Christianity is a lot closer to home as I was born Catholic, but then there's also all the madness of Christians killing people over alternative believes (e.g. deadly attacks on gays and abortion clinics), the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church (just see the domain name of their home page!), and in recent history the KKK.

      Judaism is nowadays characterised by the Israeli aggression in their occupied areas (West Bank and Gaza), and the strong suspicion towards any non-Jews and exclusion of non-Jews from their community (just to see their historical synagogue up close I have to register at least a day in advance, while I can just walk up to a cathedral or mosque).

    7. Re: Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Your experience with Islam is extremely atypical compared with most of the world, and probably has a lot to do with Islam having very low numbers in America (although higher numbers in some parts, where they are of course becoming more demanding).

      Also identifying as a Muslim doesn't make you one. If you had no problem with these people they probably didn't give a damn about the Quran.

    8. Re: Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Your experience with Islam is extremely atypical compared with most of the world.

      That's why the distinction between Islam (what you hear about in the news) and Muslims (those that walk around the streets of your neighbourhood - and those that you meet in the various Muslim countries that I visited, including Bangladesh and Indonesia - the latter being the most populous Muslim country in the world).

      If you had no problem with these people they probably didn't give a damn about the Quran.

      Why do you think that caring about the Quran necessarily results in causing problems for other people, especially non-Muslims? From what I see around me, many Muslims do care a lot about their beliefs, which I assume includes the Quran and what's written in it.

    9. Re: Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, all the false flag, false report, and literal violent bullshit has been coming out of the left.

      But but muh conservatives! But but his tax returns!

    10. Re:Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by Ogive17 · · Score: 2

      Ohio's treasurer, Josh Mandel, made that statement not the hackers.

      I'm from Ohio, our slogan use to be "Ohio, the heart of it all". The state is also shaped a bit like a heart.

      The statement is nothing more than Republicans here drumming up the fear. "Oh no they hacked our website probably from thousands of miles away and that's an attack on our freedom!"

      We have a large population of old white people who eat this stuff up. Mandel is simply campaigning for votes.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    11. Re:Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As others have said, Josh Mandel used the word "heartland". At one time, Ohio's tourism slogan was "The Heart of it All" since it kinda looks like a heart and is around the middle of the midwest.

      I would complain that you didn't read the summary, but I have read /. long enough to know it's impressive that your post is even on topic.

    12. Re: Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Hi, guy with Muslim friends here, I don't subscribe to the ISIS/Western Islamophobe narrative of an inevitable war between civilizations. It's just a relatively small group of nutjobs on the fringes of society (ISIS terrorists and bigots like you) who believe such things.

      The jihadists won't get a grand showdown against all non-jihadists in Dabiq (where they believe they'll get supernatural assistance) and the deplorables won't get their tarted-up race war.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re:Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, of course: to IS militants, Islam equals jihad. To GOP militants, it's the exact reverse.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    14. Re: Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other side we have a crazy bunch of people that think "that's a really good idea".

      Like this genius:

      He wanted it to be a wake-up call to America -- that a terrorist could strike anytime, anywhere.
      That was what Michael Sibley told investigators in March, more than four months after he left two partially assembled pipe bombs by a tree perched on a hill in a park in an Atlanta suburb, according to an FBI affidavit filed in federal court. The devices were inside a backpack that, among other things, included copies of the Quran and the book, "The Rape of Kuwait."

      Prosecutor: 'Patriot' placed pipe bombs in park to rouse America

    15. Re: Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Why do you think that caring about the Quran necessarily results in causing problems for other people, especially non-Muslims?

      Have you read it? English translations are good enough. It's one of the most spiteful, nasty, hate-filled books ever written. And it's chock full of stuff about either killing infidels or celebrating how much they will suffer in the afterlife.

    16. Re: Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, all the false flag, false report, and literal violent bullshit has been coming out of the left.

      Nope!

      Nope!

      Nope!

      I will grant this did though.

      But but muh conservatives! But but his tax returns!

      And shadowy business dealings. He can't even keep his promises, note how he claimed he wasn't going to take money from foreigners staying at his hotels? oops

    17. Re:Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Doesn't anyone find that odd? Describing the U.S. as "heartland?"

      Heartland is a term commonly used to describe a geographical region of the United States. People on the coasts tend to call it "flyover country," but of course the residents themselves don't seem to like that term.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re: Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Have you read it? English translations are good enough. It's one of the most spiteful, nasty, hate-filled books ever written. And it's chock full of stuff about either killing infidels or celebrating how much they will suffer in the afterlife.

      I'll give you a tip: Not every translation that you find on the Internet is correct. And then of course the Old Testament has some rather nasty bits as well.

    19. Re: Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just like the christian bible... but let me guess, you are more than willing to give that a pass.

    20. Re: Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" by retchdog · · Score: 2

      yeah it's right up there with the bible and talmud.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  6. The real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...Josh Mandel, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2018, posted on Facebook that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction website had been hacked and said, "Wake up freedom-loving Americans. Radical Islam infiltrating the heartland.""

    Wake up freedom loving Americans, Douchebag trying to infiltrate the Senate in 2018.

    1. Re:The real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But nothing he said here is douchey.

      Unless the hack is a smoke screen. What if he paid some US hackers to do this and pretend it was IS, just so he could play the "OMG terr'ists" card?

    2. Re:The real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Defacing a web site does not count as "infiltration".

    3. Re:The real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazism infiltrated North-America long time ago, why not the rest?

    4. Re: The real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Naziism that infiltrated North America was stomped out in 1941.

      I mean get fucking real. Your grandparents would slap the shit out of you.

    5. Re:The real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Josh Mandel? Well, of course he's shooting his mouth off. I don't think I've a more opportunistic, self-serving politician in a looong time.

      This is the guy whose own (Republican) party added an amendment to the 2017 state budget to prevent him from spending public money on self-aggrandizing commercials. He’d slipped almost $2 million in 2016 commercial buys under the radar by paying in installments below the $50,000 limit that triggered Controlling Board approval.

      This is the guy who had pledged to serve a full term during his 2010 campaign for treasurer, but launched his unsuccessful 2012 campaign to unseat Sen. Sherrod Brown within months of taking office. Asked about that pledge, Mandel said, “I don’t recall.”

    6. Re:The real problem by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      Yes, your domestic political opponents are the "real problem". Of course.

      Not a worldwide movement of violent losers, clearly shouting their reasons as they do their horrors, all while you thoughtful folks puzzle over what their motivations might possibly be. Oh no, not them. The "real problem" are your peaceful domestic political opponents.

    7. Re:The real problem by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      There are douchebags on both sides. (Let's face it, there are only two main choices in U.S. politics, but that's a separate issue.) This guy is just the current example-of-the-day. Any of these pols that engages in self-promoting hyperbole is part of the problem, no matter the party affiliation.

      The fact that you assumed this was an example of an "opponent" seems telling, though.

    8. Re: The real problem by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The Naziism that infiltrated North America was stomped out in 1941.

      I never read about Henry Ford being arrested in 1941.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. A remarkably begnign hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is only meant to embarrass the current party in power. Any attempt by them to deflect the blame is pathetic. The idiots are in charge!

  8. Aloha Snackbar!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Free bacon for every raghead!

    1. Re:Aloha Snackbar!!! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Really? Gimme a sec, I wanted to wash my hair anyway. Towels count, right?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. An Inside Job perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order to get new funding to fight the Terrorists?
    Or will it all be tracted back to a Trump supporter/support group or to some of the few remaining Hillary fans?

    Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of 'The USA Adventure' (Rated PG)

  10. Re:Blame the RUSSIANS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reeks of false flag. Inside job. XYZ agency operatives. Gives government reason for international "kill switch."

  11. Re: Blame the Obama courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Except for two Pan Am flights, shelter for dozens of other terrorist groups, and their continued harassment of US forces in other ways. If Bush the Elder hadn't been so incompetent as to let Hussein invade Kuwait, he probably would have started a war with Libya instead.

    The fact is, the only person that liked Q-ball was Donald Trump, but there is no point in mourning a dead dictator.

  12. WordPress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were the sites running WordPress?

    The sites were probably running WordPress. /me runs away

  13. Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'd really like to see Slashdot readers try to defend their hypocrisy. I won't even bring up the apologists who defend Islam, which is responsible for numerous terror attacks, while slamming Christianity, which is generally not associated with violence. In this post, I'm objecting to labeling anyone who criticizes Islam as a racist while encouraging racism against Indians.

    Let's say you want to subject Muslims to enhanced screening before they board aircraft, because Muslims have committed acts of terror on commercial aircraft in recent history. Intelligence also indicates that Muslim terror groups still want to attack commercial aircraft. Furthermore, nobody is born a Muslim; people choose to be Muslim and can change at any time. Well, that enhanced screening is racist and anyone who supports that is a racist.

    Let's say you don't like H-1B tech workers from India, who simply want to have a good salary and work for American companies. Let's say you want to kick them out of the United States and send of them back to India. Well, that's not racist at all. In fact, it's encouraged.

    My post will quickly be censored to -1 to avoid addressing this hypocrisy, but it absolutely needs to pointed out. I predict that Slashdot readers will be too cowardly to address my observation.

    1. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I predict that Slashdot readers will be too cowardly to address my observation.

      Not at all... You are full of shit... Nothing more need be said... You're welcome

    2. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by hawguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd really like to see Slashdot readers try to defend their hypocrisy. I won't even bring up the apologists who defend Islam, which is responsible for numerous terror attacks, while slamming Christianity, which is generally not associated with violence.

      That's only true if you ignore christian backed acts of terror (not to mention the whole pedophila coverup in the Catholic Church, but that only destroys lives one at a time, so probably doesn't matter to you).

      Here's a few Christian groups you seem to have missed:

      Army of God (AOG) is a Christian terrorist organization that has engaged in the use of anti-abortion violence in the United States to fight against abortion

      The Montana Freemen were an anti-government Christian Patriot movement group based outside the town of Jordan, Montana.

      The Anti-balaka are a militia and terrorist group fighting in the Central African Republic composed primarily of Christians.

      There are more out there, if you care to look.

      Let's say you want to subject Muslims to enhanced screening before they board aircraft, because Muslims have committed acts of terror on commercial aircraft in recent history. Intelligence also indicates that Muslim terror groups still want to attack commercial aircraft. Furthermore, nobody is born a Muslim; people choose to be Muslim and can change at any time. Well, that enhanced screening is racist and anyone who supports that is a racist.

      That's because you can't tell if someone is a Muslim by looking at them, where they came from, or even by asking them. If a muslim intent on destroying a plane is asked his religion, he's not going to say "Muslim". And he'll likely be traveling under a sanitized passport that hides his country of origin.

      So instead of screening radical Muslims intent on doing harm, enhanced Muslim screening just harasses the ones that are honest enough to admit their religion. There are 1.6B Muslims in the world, trying to intensively screen them all just dilutes efforts to find real terrorists that want to bring down a plane. And the weapons used in the next successful terror attack will not likely evade the security theater at airport checkpoints, it will likely either come through the rest of airport infrastructure which is much easier to sneak contraband through, or will come from bribing TSA staff at some small airport to let a "drug courier" through security while he's actually carrying explosives who can just continue on his journey on a larger plane at a major airport.

      Let's say you don't like H-1B tech workers from India, who simply want to have a good salary and work for American companies. Let's say you want to kick them out of the United States and send of them back to India. Well, that's not racist at all. In fact, it's encouraged.

      If you specifically want Indian H1-B's to be kicked out but not H1-B's from other countries, that's still racist.

      My post will quickly be censored to -1 to avoid addressing this hypocrisy, but it absolutely needs to pointed out. I predict that Slashdot readers will be too cowardly to address my observation.

      That's strong words coming from someone posting as an Anonymous Coward.

    3. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not true. Muslim extremists are well know to the security services and are monitored for years. But they still get to murder and blow people up. Look at the recently weekly attacks in Europe. All are known, but "Human Rights" laws mean they can't be kicked out, or locked up until they've killed law enforcement or children at a pop concert.

    4. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Care to compare some numbers?

      Number of victims in christian terrorist attacks over last, say, 10 yeats, vs number of victims in muslim terrorist attacks?

      'cause this line of defense increasingly looks like "but Jews were persecuting the Nazis too!" and presenting the evidence of a case of a German kid in Baden-Baden in 1935, whom a pair of Jewish bullies stole a breakfast.

    5. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Kiuas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not true. Muslim extremists are well know to the security services and are monitored for years. But they still get to murder and blow people up. Look at the recently weekly attacks in Europe. All are known, but "Human Rights" laws mean they can't be kicked out, or locked up until they've killed law enforcement or children at a pop concert.

      This is just BS from start to finish. The phrase 'known to security services' is used a lot, but that does not mean these individuals are under 24/7 monitoring. 'Known to security services' just means their name has come up at some point during some check up, ie. that these people are not in the country illegally/without the permission of the officials. This group of 'known to officials' includes everyone vetted and cleared by the officials, as well as everyone with friends and family of a person that's ever been a person of interest. Say someone's brother or a friend travels over to Syria, these people are then likely interviewed/checked by the security officials and are now under the category of 'known to officials'.

      Officials in Brittain and elsewhere have openly said one of the problems is there is not enough human resources to track/monitor every potential threat 24/7. Whether this is actually the case or whether the UK authorities simply want to use this as a leverage to gain more powers á la the Patriot act I do not know, Speaking about the London bridge attacker, assistant comissioner Mark Rowley said he "was known to the security services, but there was no evidence of "attack planning" by him." (source).

      You're trying to insinuate that European and American intelligence agencies know well in advance who's going to attack and where and just can't do anything because of "human rights" (using air quotes as if the concept would be somehow difficult or vague to understand). If there's probable cause that someone's planning an attack, of course they're arrested and prosecuted. What's really going on is that the security services are doing their best to try and prevent/arrest people who're actually planning crimes but no system is 100 % perfect. If there is no evidence that someone is actively planning an attack there's simply no way in most countries for the authorities to have the money/legal power to keep these individuals under surveillance 24/7 'just in case'. So in the example mentioned earlier, if someone's interviewed because their friend/family member went to Syria and nothing of interest comes up during this check, they're not going to be put under 24 hour surveillance. If this individual years later self-radicalizes (in a fashion very similar to western born school shooters) and commits an attack, he/she was 'known to officials' but this obviously does not translate to 'the officials were watching them continuously and had exact details about the planned attack, however chose to do nothing because of the subject's 'human rights'" and anybody who thinks so is an idiot.

      There seems to be a misconception in the west that the security services are somehow all knowing and all powerful (they're not, they just like to project that image) and could prevent all attacks if we just got rid of such pesky things such as the rule of law and gave the authorities the power to kick in doors and disappear people based on just their internet search history without any probable cause or a trial but I really would hope people on /. are smart enough and know enough history to understand why this is unwise.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    6. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Well, Breivik for one had one of the highest bodycounts for a terrorist attack in Europe.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christianity and Islam have the same god; they're both branches of the same fucked up mega-cult ruining the world. Examples of Christian violence doesn't make Islam look better, it just makes the root religion look worse.

      The KKK was another deeply Christian organization, btw.

      Airport screening may not work, but the GP does have a point: Islam is not a race so it is an error when people say opposing it is "racist".

    8. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      Fucked up the source for the quote. Fixed.

      Sorry about that.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    9. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by moronoxyd · · Score: 4, Informative

      I assume you never heard of the IRA.

    10. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Interestingly the concert bomber was a known threat, and here comes the problem with painting all Muslims with the same brush: he was a known threat because the Muslim community had reported him as a threat !
      His own Imam had banned him from his mosque over his violent rhetoric and reported him to the authorities over his bragging that he was planning a violent attack.
      His family had made similar reports, wanting him watched - because they'd rather see him in jail for conspiracy to commit terror than dead from doing it.

      Why was he not being watched ? Because the Tories have cut the police force's budget by over 25% in recent years leaving Britain (and London in particular) with a massive shortage of cops. Thousands had to be let go due to this insane policy.

      Ironically - while the government keeps trying to use terror to get further reductions in citizen privacy and surveilance power (things that do not help to prevent terror attacks) they gutted the one thing that DOES have the power to stop terror attacks: good old fashioned police work.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    11. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is just BS from start to finish. The phrase 'known to security services' is used a lot, but that does not mean these individuals are under 24/7 monitoring. 'Known to security services' just means their name has come up at some point during some check up, ie. that these people are not in the country illegally/without the permission of the officials. This group of 'known to officials' includes everyone vetted and cleared by the officials, as well as everyone with friends and family of a person that's ever been a person of interest. Say someone's brother or a friend travels over to Syria, these people are then likely interviewed/checked by the security officials and are now under the category of 'known to officials'.

      To quote yourself "This is just BS from start to finish."

      For one this has rarely ever anything to do with Syrians. They're just a convenient scapegoat to paint migrants as poor unfortunate war refugees. Almost all terrorists in the EU come here from other countries.

      "Known to security services" at best means they have been arrested for actual crimes before. At worst it means they were known Muslim extremists. They're not some benevolent poor sod who is caught in the evil authoritarian machine.

      For example the terrorist from Berlin, Germany last Christmas was from Tunesia and was known for being a radical Islamist who committed identity fraud, welfare fraud, had narcotics, had contacts to Islamist networks and so on. It was exactly because of "human rights" that he could neither be deported nor taken into custody until his deportation.

    12. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the USA - in the past 9 years, Islamic groups have launched 63 attempted attacks of which 76% were prevented by law enforcement. 13% of successful attacks had fatalities. Overall death toll: 90 (mostly because of the high deathtoll in the Orlando nightclub shooting - which it is not certain was, in fact, an Islamic terror attack)

      Rightwing Christian terror groups planned 135 attacks of which only 35% were prevented. 33% had fatalities. Overall death toll: 79 (pretty close considering they haven't had a nightclub shooting outlier in there - and of course if the Kansas Mosque/Appartment bombing hadn't been prevented - it would have been in the hundreds, and since they get prevented far more rarely, the odds are in their favour).

      http://www.newsweek.com/right-...

      The FBI, and 238 police organisations in the USA all consider rightwing militias the greatest terror threat to US citizens.

      Globally the Christian Lords Resistance Army alone has killed more people every year of it's 20 year existence than all the Islamic terror groups combined in total, ever - even 9/11 is a blip on the radar next to the LRA (a group also known for using child soldiers and engaging in cannibalism).

      When you add other terror groups however the Islamic numbers turn into a rounding error. They just make better news in the West.

      That said there is no religion with clean hands. In 2003 over 3000 Muslims in Southern India were killed by Hindu extremists in an act of attempted genocide, the main ringleader of that attack is now the prime minister of India. Meanwhile in Myanmar as we speak thousands of Muslims have been killed in an ongoing genocide attempt by Buddhists (yes, Budhists - their pacifism apparently does not extend to their Muslim fellow citizens).

      But there is no doubt the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Christian - it is only logical, as the largest religion on earth by far, they must also have the largest number of radicals.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    13. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that the majority of people who have this religion are (generally believed to be) of a common race so those with that race is usually assumed to be of that religion and often discriminated against.
      Some of the worst acts of anti-Islamic discrimination and violence recently have been targetting Sikhs for example, even though Sikhs are not Islamic - but they look like stereotypical Muslims are expected to look.

      It's actually quite hard to discriminate against a religion - you can't really tell what somebody believes by looking at them. Their thoughts aren't printed on their faces. So such discrimination is usually done via proxies - in the case of Islamophobia that proxy is almost always race. No Muslim screening system yet invented would have have screen Cassius Clay/Muhammed Ali if he had chosen to keep his conversion secret. No screening system known to man yet would have consistently held Cat Stephens for extra checks. Because these folks don't look Muslim. Because they aren't Arabs.

      The proxy is terrible, not all Arabs are Muslims, not all Muslims are Arab (in fact a very, very large number of them aren't - many are Indian for example) and there is no actual correlation between being a Muslim and being a threat.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    14. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Wootery · · Score: 1

      people choose to be Muslim and can change at any time

      Not always, no.

    15. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by bestweasel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Christianity, which is generally not associated with violence.

      Only if you're selective. Religion is just one of many excuses for violence thought up by us clever little monkeys and it doesn't really matter which one - look at the Buddhists in Burma murdering Muslims - and is usually not the root cause. I bet the proportion of Muslims, Christians, Jews and atheists who beat their spouses is about the same. This is Christianity v Islam only in the eyes of fanatics.

      nobody is born a Muslim; people choose to be Muslim and can change at any time. Well, that enhanced screening is racist and anyone who supports that is a racist.

      They can change but they don't; the vast majority of people have the same religion as their parents.

      Your meaning is unclear but I assume you think the last sentence is an erroneous conclusion. The trouble is nearly all Muslims are people of colour, including the 800,000 African-American Muslims so any attempt to single them out looks the same as racism, unless everyone carries religious ID. Can't see any problems with that.

      Let's say you don't like H-1B tech workers from India, ... Well, that's not racist at all. In fact, it's encouraged.

      There are two main reasons for not liking H-1B tech workers from India:

      1. Because they are from India. This is racism.

      2. They depress wages for American workers and take away their jobs. This may be a valid objection but the workers are the wrong target, unless you can maybe whip up sufficient hatred to get enough of them beaten up or killed to discourage more from coming but it's a messy and haphazard business and unlikely to succeed.

      If instead you meant people don't like the idea of H-1B tech workers from India, the right targets are the employers and legislators.

    16. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Wootery · · Score: 1, Troll

      Agree that the LRA is way under-reported, but

      there is no doubt the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Christian

      Uh. Citation needed.

      Every time there's a terrorist incident in the west, we all politely wait to find out the ideology behind it, and it almost invariably turns out to be jihadism. I'm British. This shit seems to happen every other week now, and it's never Christian extremism that motivates it. The closest we've seen is a Muslim-hating nutter, but as far as we know he wasn't motivated by his own religion (if he even had one), but by a mad hatred of all muslims.

      I'll also leave you with this extremely NSFW submission from The Onion, which makes the point rather nicely.

      In the West, no-one gets killed for making fun of Christianity.

    17. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'd really like to see Slashdot readers try to defend their hypocrisy. I won't even bring up the apologists who defend Islam, which is responsible for numerous terror attacks, while slamming Christianity, which is generally not associated with violence."

      It's like "the troubles" never happened, the Oklahoma bombing never happened, and random religious crazies who happened to be Christian have never gone on occasional shooting rampages.

      There's no hypocrisy. There should be screening for everyone within reasonable limits that don't turn whole communities of innocent people into second-class citizens devoid of any personal privacy. You're looking for people with violent intent and who incite others to violence. Usually those people are too stupid to keep their mouths shut. The flavor of religion shouldn't matter to the process.

    18. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >Uh. Citation needed.
      Did you not see the citation earlier on in the post- showing how Christian terrorists outdo Islamic ones in the USA ? Then you acknowledge the lack of reporting on the LRA but don't realise they ALONE outkill Islamic terrorists. They do in a year what all Islamic groups manage per decade ! That alone makes Christianity the obvious worst globally. The rest was just more examples.

      >Every time there's a terrorist incident in the west, we all politely wait to find out the ideology behind it, and it almost invariably turns out to be jihadism
      Nope. Not even slightly true. What IS true is that, almost every time a terrorist incident in the west is actually REPORTED as one it's jihadism. I, personally, have zero qualms about saying that German pilot who flew his plane full of people into a mountain on purpose was a terrorist in the exact same vein as those on 9/11 - but it wasn't reported that way because he was white, male and Christian. But even so - study after study keeps confirming, the vast majority of terror attacks are not Islamic jihadists.

      >The closest we've seen is a Muslim-hating nutter [theguardian.com], but as far as we know he wasn't motivated by his own religion (if he even had one)
      Firstly, you're forgetting the IRA existed, how short our memories are - that peace deal was so recent the ink was still wet when 9/11 happened. Their terror attacks on London killed far more people over decades than Islamic terrorists ever have. The blew up more than a few buildings in London - the last one in 1996 I believe.
      But jihadists are not motivated by their religion either. Indeed I don't think any terrorists are motivated BY their religion - mostly they are motivated by other factors and religion becomes an excuse to rationalize what they do about those factors. There's significant evidence to back this up - including that most of the people who have launched attacks in Europe were either new converts to Islam or had a long history of apostocy before suddenly becoming radicals. Two of the Charley Hebdo shooters had only become Muslims less than 2 years earlier. The other one had a long history of drug use and other prohibited activities and were known as "not religious" for most of his life.
      France's top terror expert has said "It's not the radicalization of Islam that's the problem, it's the Islamification of radicalism that we should worry about".

      It actually makes sense - 1.6 Billion odd Muslims are convinced their religion absolutely prohibits killing people except in self defense. I live in a 30% Muslim city and I regularly see Bumper Stickers that read "I Shall Love All Mankind" (by the way - we've not had a terrorist attack in 3 decades now and the ones we HAVE had in the past didn't include a single one from the Muslim population).
      The evidence suggests that the real problem is culture-clash - which is common in second-generation immigrants. Expected to live according to their old culture at home, but live in a different one - they often feel isolated and out of touch with society. In a few - this can be twisted into radical violence (it's almost unheard of in first or third generation immigrants - the former haven't attempted to fit in, the latter fits in too well to feel isolated). We just happen to live at a time when, the majority of second generation immigrants in Europe happen to be of the same religous heritage. But it's not their religion that motivates them - if anything it's a feeling of not being able to connect with that religion.
      Rootlessness is hard for all people - and in a few it can be exploited. But so can a lot of things- many a rightwing christian militia terrorist have been military veterans, and it wasn't just their military training (that only makes the valuable to recruit - not easy to recruit), what made them recruitable was PTSD and, again, the resulting isolation.

      Finally - there is a very clear pattern where terrorism attacks show strong upticks around elections - and the strongest upticks happen in elections

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    19. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With numbers? The IRA is responsible for around 1500 deaths total, almost entirely within their own country and only until the nineties. In the last 10 years, like the AC requested, they are responsible for how many deaths?

    20. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Entrope · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your link to a left wing agitprop outlet might be remotely convincing if it linked to anything that supported its numbers.

      It's also pathetic that you compare LRA to terrorist attacks, but not to the actually comparable group -- ISIS, which is in fact what this article is about. LRA does not kill as many people as you claim; its annual average is about 3000, basically as many as died on 9/11. On the other hand, ISIS has been killing about 10,000 people every year.

      Your arguments are deeply dishonest.

    21. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by mrclevesque · · Score: 3, Informative

      ""Known to security services" at best means they have been arrested for actual crimes before."

      No it doesn't.

    22. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As your own post describes by referencing improperly targeted Sikh, people of Indian or middle eastern descent aren't assumed to be Muslim. People with a specific flavor of funny headgear are assumed to be Muslim. It's not based on race, but style of dress and you can really tell what certain people believe by looking at them (misidentifying Sikh as Muslim aside). Most Muslim people don't wear any specific clothing, but nearly all people who wear traditional Muslim garb are Muslim (and often belong to the more fundamental branches, just like in any other religion).

      Not to excuse any hatred out there, but many Muslims self-identify by their style of dress and it's not racist to look at someone wearing a hijab or taqiyah and assume that they're Muslim.

    23. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      A survey in 2011 found that only 72% of Muslims viewed suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets as never justified. The pew poll in 2013 had similar results, I could not find more recent results on muslims' views but I doubt they've changed much. I challenge you to find any poll of Christians that that think the actions you listed above are never justified below 95%. More then one in four muslims are nuts while less then 1 in 20 Christians are, everyone has crazies, islam is the only religion that encourages the craziness.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    24. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by knope · · Score: 2

      cheers. religion is the root of all war, genocide, and above all else hypocrisy. it also has the power to help people find solace in ignorance, coddling the fears of death and wrong doing with a rag of ether. to "hell" with donald trump, religious zealots of all varieties, and the rambling liars that stand behind their deceit in cowardice.

    25. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Informative

      Rightwingers always dismiss anything they don't agree with as 'leftwing' as if that makes it false, and thus remain idiots. The article DID in fact give you the full details on the study it reports from, and a mere few minutes of googling would confirm that the FBI does consider rightwing christian militias the biggest terror threat in the USA from multiple sources - including the FBI's own website.

      None of which will convince you since your beliefs are based on personal prejudice rather than any concern for correlation with reality.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    26. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A statistic I ran across, will post if I re-find it:

      • Number of Muslims in the U.S.: about 8 million
      • Number of people in the U.S. that own an AR-15 or variant: about 8 million.

      AR-15 owners are about twice as likely Muslims to be terrorists (with some overlap). Note that the phrasing is owners, not which weapons were used n the attack.

      Basically, anyone advocating for 'screening anyone who looks Muslim' should be advocating for 'screening anyone who looks like an AR-15 owner. Because, you know, 'math'. But for some reason that never makes it through any political filters ...

    27. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually quite hard to discriminate against a religion - you can't really tell what somebody believes by looking at them.

      The hell? You can't tell someone's gay just by their appearance, either.

    28. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It did so for the terrorist from Berlin.

      It did so for the terrorist from Stockholm.

      It did for the terrorist from Westminster.

      Same for the terrorist from Nice.

    29. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I challenge you to find any poll of Christians that that think the actions you listed above are never justified below 95%.

      Done

    30. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're not going to try to link to the study or even defend it, either. Figures.

      You are a lazy a$$ huh? If you really read the link he gave you, you should be able to find a way to get to more information of the study. There is another link to go to the methodology of how the writer collect data. If you are still being a moronic lazy a$$hole, then you should show the number you collected too. Using a method of yelling out other's omitted info but at the same time never want to reveal your own is a very familiar distracting strategy.

    31. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      No, because you're asking me for a study to confirm that most people perceive the sky at noon on a clear day as blue.

      Fine, so it looks red to you.

      That's a problem with your eyes, not a grand conspiracy by society to lie to you.

      There is so much absolutely overwhelming proof of everything I've said - that there is absolutely no sane reason to doubt it. The only possible reason to think otherwise is prejudice, which is as irrational as religion and as impossible to convince.

      So no, I'm not going to link or defend - because nothing I say will convince you. One cannot argue with irrational beliefs.

      You're the one making the extraordinary claim (that the largest religion on earth does not also have the largest number of fanatics) - which is mathematically impossible - so the burden of proof is on you to show extraordinary evidence.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    32. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Entrope · · Score: 2

      What you claimed:

      Overall death toll: 90 (mostly because of the high deathtoll in the Orlando nightclub shooting - which it is not certain was, in fact, an Islamic terror attack)

      What the study claimed:

      The total deaths associated with Islamist incidents were higher, however, reaching 90, largely due to the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas.

      This tells us that they didn't count either the San Bernardino or the Orlando mass murders as Islamic attacks, and that you don't know what the dishonest study you cited says.

    33. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Seeing their claimed methodology is worthless without seeing their raw data and how they tagged it. It is clear, though, that they were very biased in that part of their "study". They knew in advance what they wanted to find, and they probably tortured the data until it said what they wanted.

    34. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      So somehow you come to the conclusion that from a (minor) mistake by me- the study is 'dishonest' ?

      On what basis do you conclude that other than "does not agree with my prejudices" ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    35. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Entrope · · Score: 1

      You ignorantly cited an intentionally biased study that didn't say what you claimed it said. Don't talk to me about who is blind to reality.

    36. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Entrope · · Score: 1

      The study clearly omitted those two attacks, apparently because they wanted to bias their numbers. But they don't publish their data because they want to hide that.

    37. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by retchdog · · Score: 1

      maybe the police just really hated Ariana Grande fans?

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    38. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Everything I said it said was in the study. The phrases in brackets were my own explanations and assumptions - I never claimed that was in the study.
      You still haven't presented a single shred of evidence that the study was 'biased'.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    39. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Why was he not being watched ? Because the Tories have cut the police force's budget by over 25% in recent years leaving Britain (and London in particular) with a massive shortage of cops.

      Weak on crime.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    40. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Funny, at the time I made a joke (in certain circles) about him not being an islamic terrorist so much as fanatical about good music (a bit like Cartman in the conclusion to the Coon and Friends trilogy).

      But sadly, your version doesn't work - because they knowledge police had beforehand did not include his chosen target.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    41. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Entrope · · Score: 1

      You "explained" that the death toll sure to Islamic terror attacks was 90 largely because of the Orlando attack, but the study said it was because of the Fort Hood shooting (13 deaths). Either they were wrong about what drive their count, or they omitted both the Orlando shooting (50 deaths) and the San Bernardino shooting (14 deaths).

      You also "explained" that it wasn't clear that the Orlando attack was Islamic terrorism, even though the shooter called 911 to pledge allegiance to an ISIS leader and say his actions were because the US killed an ISIS member the week before.

      So, given that the study omitted the two highest-fatality attacks in its scope, it is pretty clearly biased. Because they didn't release their full tagged data set, we can only speculate how poorly they categorized the smaller attacks that drove their headline numbers.

    42. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indonesia is another example....The country with the largest Muslim population in the world.

    43. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "Known to security services"

      Can mean someone has not been "arrested for actual crimes" but security services have heard about them and have their name on file, for example the Manchester bomber Salman Abedi http://uk.businessinsider.com/...

      1) He told friends "being a suicide bomber was okay," something that led them to contact an anti-terrorism hotline run by the British government. 2) A community worker who knew Abedi had been worried he was "supporting terrorism" and had expressed the view that "being a suicide bomber was ok" 3) Didsbury Mosque — attended by Abedi in the past — contacted the Home Office's Prevent programme about Abedi. Prevent is an anti-radicalisation programme. 4) Two people who knew Abedi at college made calls about him to the authorities, the BBC added.

      So he was "known" to MI5.

    44. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by boa · · Score: 0

      "Well, Breivik for one had one of the highest bodycounts for a terrorist attack in Europe."

      Maybe, but he wasn't christian so yet another of your arguments is void.

      Ref your claim that you remember your childhood well and that you were not brainwashed. Still you come up with all these weird claims . Maybe you're more brainwashed than you think?

    45. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Manchester attacker was also "known" because of theft and assault: http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/police-reveal-manchester-attacker-salman-abedi-s-petty-criminal-past/story-iALPPyhtag37nTFGbchxhL.html

      I also said "At worst it means they were known Muslim extremists." Which in that case applies too. It wasn't just some seven-degrees-of-kevin-bacon relationship for which he was "known".

    46. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by enjar · · Score: 1

      I'd really like to see Slashdot readers try to defend their hypocrisy ... ... My post will quickly be censored to -1 to avoid addressing this hypocrisy, but it absolutely needs to pointed out. I predict that Slashdot readers will be too cowardly to address my observation.

      A lecture on hypocrisy and cowardice delivered by Anonymous Coward. See: recursion.

    47. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      But that doesn't support the right-wing narrative of "Muslims never police their own, so we must keep them out of our country!" So clearly you are wrong.

    48. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (yes, Budhists - their pacifism apparently does not extend to their Muslim fellow citizens

      Pacifism is a form of extreme behavior more in tune with Jainism. A Buddhist should avoid extremes. I'm sure the government of Myanmar is performing only moderate ethnic cleansing instead of an extreme one, giving them only moderate life sentences in the international criminal court eventually. ;) Meanwhile, Bangladesh doesn't care for the refugees even though they share the religion and the border.

    49. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are you talking about? Breivik sees himself as a christian chrusader for fucks sake, a member of knights templar. It is all in his bloody manifest.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    50. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there is no doubt the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Christian - it is only logical, as the largest religion on earth by far, they must also have the largest number of radicals.

      Oh, bullshit. The US is 70.6% Christian and 0.9% Muslim (ref), and yet - by your own numbers - Christian terrorists commit only twice as many attacks as Muslim terrorists, rather than the seventy time as many that we would expect if they were equally violent.

      And that is, of course, if we trust your numbers. For such a political subject, I wouldn't trust the number of attacks: a partisan analyst can easily fudge the definition of "attack" a bit, or a lot, to suit their prejudices. Death toll makes a more reliable measure: it's difficult to argue with a dead body.

      People still try to fudge these numbers by redefining exactly what constitutes a Christian/Muslim terrorist attack. You've tried to do this yourself, arguing that the Orlando nightclub shooting shouldn't count, despite the shooter saying "In the name of Allah the Merciful, the beneficent" as the very first thing he said upon picking up the phone (ref), with a total of three references to Allah in five lines of conversation. If we looked properly at the instances of purportedly Christian terrorism you're referencing, do you really think they would meet this same standard of religious motivation?

    51. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.6 Billion odd Muslims are convinced their religion absolutely prohibits killing people except in self defense.

      Less than this. A significant fraction of Muslims believe that leaving Islam should be punished by death. In the country with the world's largest Muslim population, Indonesia, it's only 18%. (Still frightfully high: that's people who support killing people for believing the wrong thing.) In the country with the world's second-largest Muslim population, Pakistan, it's 76%!

      If such a large fraction of Muslims support the death penalty for mere apostasy, how many more do you think support killing people in other circumstances short of self-defence?

      (See these survey results.)

    52. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "It wasn't just some seven-degrees-of-kevin-bacon relationship for which he was "known" "

      Yes, technically, he had been arrested for some petty crime, I admit my comment wasn't well thought out, but as you explain a lot of other non-extremists who haven't ever been arrested are also "known to security services" which was my original point.

    53. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "It wasn't just some seven-degrees-of-kevin-bacon relationship for which he was "known" "

      Yes, technically, he had been arrested for some petty crime, I admit my comment wasn't well thought out, but as you explain a lot of other non-extremists who haven't ever been arrested are also "known to security services" which was my original point.

      (asdfghjkl)

    54. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUck you namefag.

    55. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by S48D31F68E4S2 · · Score: 0

      "...because the Muslim community had reported him as a threat !"

      No doubt those reports were handled by a douche bag like yourself, who almost certainly ignored the reports and characterized them as Islamophobic Tories trying to start something.

    56. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually when Trump got elected he told all agencies to STOP watching right-wing groups. EXCEPT for Muslim ones of course.

    57. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yes, and I already said I made a mistake in that explanation. Why do you keep hammering on about an error after I conceded it ?

      Obviously the study should take precedence over my mistake.

      And no, it was by no means clear the Orlando shooting was Islamic terrorism - because there are serious reasons to doubt his statements about that. First of all there is the absolute fact that he was not in contact with ISIS at any time - he was lone wolf entirely and his claims of acting on their behalf are further doubtful due to other known facts - like that he was active on grindr and was a regular of the club for many years. This strongly suggests the real reason was shame about his own homophobia - and the ISIS claim was merely his inabillity to admit the truth about why he did it. Is this conclusive ? Absolutely not. Does it mean it wasn't Islamic terror ? No. But it certainly means there is reason to doubt that.

      You call the study biassed - but it agrees with FBI studies galore, with the official position of the FBI and 238 other police organisations in the USA and with global patterns. Even if it was biased as you claim - it was still right in it's conclusions.
      This is not a new, unexpected or even controversial result -it's exactly in line with every other data source out there on terrorism.

      So I don't think you are calling it biased because you think it's wrong - but because 'bias' is yet another standard rightwing tool for shutting down any information they don't want to hear. You see it whenever you mention a news source to them - and indeed you yourself showed that behaviour when you described newsweek (one of the most respected publications in the entire field of journalism) of being 'leftwing agitprop'.
      Sorry, but no matter WHAT bias you think something has - it can still be correct. And the proper media - faulted as it may at times be - is the only source you should trust AT ALL because everything else is worse. The mainstream media may be biassed at the times but the non-mainstream media is pure, unadulterated bullshit they just pull straight out of their asses without a single shred of truth to any word they write.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    58. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Right... because the Imam of the local church is so likely to be Islamophobic. Damn could you be any stupider ?

      The police themselves said outright: they weren't watching him since they simply do not have the manpower to watch every credible report.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    59. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The evidence suggests that the real problem is culture-clash - which is common in second-generation immigrants. Expected to live according to their old culture at home, but live in a different one - they often feel isolated and out of touch with society.

      Choice 1:
      Do not allow any immigration at all from any country that would produce a culture clash with ours. If someone is found to be having a little problem controlling themselves (i.e. a "sexual emergency", shitting in public pools, honor killings, etc.) then they must be deported immediately with zero regard for their bullshit excuses.

      If an immigrant lies to the government (i.e. to gain entry) or violates any law (even just jaywalking) then the maximum punishment of the law should be immediately applied and afterwards (assuming the offender wasn't executed for, say, murder) the offender must be deported.

      Only allow immigration if an individual has proven that they are fluent in the native language and are fully willing and able to assimilate.

      Why? Because that's the whole fucking point of having a distinct country in the first place.

      Look, it's not fascism, it's just a pragmatic solution for this one issue. It's not a whole totalitarian and racist political philosophy meant to apply to everything about government.



      Choice 2:
      Admit that a couple lunatics blowing up themselves and a few score others at semi-regular intervals isn't a serious problem, cannot be avoided anyway, and thus no solution needs to be implemented.

      This would piss would definitely piss off large portions of the population who expect mommy government to solve all problems.

      One way to deal with this public outrage could be to just tell them: "look, if you're concerned about your personal safety then carry a weapon". This should appeal to any libertarians or anyone who's not a spineless pussy but also cares about not stereotyping and demonizing a whole group of people.



      Choice 3:
      The way it's being handled right now is "Everyone just calm down. It's not an issue, just stop being frustrated, angry, or upset. Just everyone shush. Everything is fine. Not all muslims..." combined with "no violence, even in self defense, is acceptable... unless you're a muslim, then do whatever you want."

      This head-in-the-sand approach that Western governments are currently taking is pathetic and ineffective and provokes outrage on the part of those who are now actually turning to legitimate, actual, fascism in response.


      Is there a fourth option that I'm missing which actually addresses the problem here?

    60. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've never seen the Village People, have you?

    61. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Entrope · · Score: 1

      There are reasons to doubt that the Orlando nightclub shooting was Islamic terror. They're just bad reasons, on par with reasons to doubt that President Obama was born in the US. Being in contact with ISIS is not a prerequisite for conducting an Islamist terror attack, and as far as I know the attacker didn't claim (at least at the time of the attack) that he had been in such contact. Do you require that "right-wing terror" people have been in recent contact with members of the RNC?

      Keep motivating the fuck out of that cognition. Meanwhile, us members of the reality-based community will be discounting your "alternative facts".

    62. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Entrope · · Score: 1
    63. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by boa · · Score: 1

      "What the fuck are you talking about? Breivik sees himself as a christian chrusader for fucks sake, a member of knights templar. It is all in his bloody manifest."

      Is that so?

      Breivik stated in a letter he wrote in November 2015, that "he was not, and never had been christian. He found the christian message 'pathetic', and his only god was Odin(Wotan)."

      Source(paywalled/Norwegian): http://www.dagen.no/Nyheter/he...

      Even Wikipedia states this fact clearly:

      While imprisoned, Breivik has identified himself as a fascist[29] and a national socialist,[30] saying he previously exploited counterjihadist rhetoric in order to protect ethno-nationalists.[31] In 2015, he said that he has never personally identified as a Christian, and called his religion Odinism

      Don't drink the Kool-Aid, mate. Investigate a little before you post.

    64. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      You also "explained" that it wasn't clear that the Orlando attack was Islamic terrorism, even though the shooter called 911 to pledge allegiance to an ISIS leader and say his actions were because the US killed an ISIS member the week before.

      What we know is that some in-the-closet gay man, who hated himself for being gay, started hating other gay men for being gay and murdered 50 of them. He was a muslim, which wasn't great for him to come to terms with being gay; being raised as a fundamental Christian would have the same effect.

      Now after the deed is done, he was too ashamed to announce "I am gay and hate myself for it, and I hate all gay people, and that's what I shot them". So instead he gave a message of support for ISIS, intentionally to make himself even more hated.

      Fact is if he had tried to join ISIS and they had found out he's gay they would have killed him on the spot.

    65. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I assume you've no idea what you're talking about. The IRA happened to be Catholic, so it was a useful label to distinguish them from their enemies, who happened to be protestant. But neither side were killing the other in the name of their religion, nor would they ever have claimed to - unlike the current crop of terrorists.

    66. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Wootery · · Score: 1

      (even just jaywalking) then the maximum punishment of the law should be immediately applied and afterwards (assuming the offender wasn't executed for, say, murder) the offender must be deported

      Talk about going off the deep end...

      look, if you're concerned about your personal safety then carry a weapon

      I realise we're teetering on the gun debate rabbit-hole, but: it's hardly clear that arming thousands of untrained civilians reduces violent fatalities.

      You know why the Borough Market attackers used knives? British gun control.

      no violence, even in self defense, is acceptable... unless you're a muslim, then do whatever you want.

      That's not the impression I've been getting. I mean, Corbyn said that shooting terrorists dead is mean, but I don't think anyone's saying violence is ok if it's muslims doing it.

      This head-in-the-sand approach that Western governments are currently taking is pathetic and ineffective

      Tentatively agree.

      Is there a fourth option that I'm missing which actually addresses the problem here?

      Yes: emphasising the root causes of Islamic terrorism, supporting organisations like Quilliam who promote moderate liberalised Islam.

      A necessary first step is to stop politely pretending that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.

    67. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by vfs · · Score: 1

      There's so much wrong with this post that I don't even know where to begin.

      First off, the article you cite does not claim that "Rightwing Christian terror groups" are responsbile for the statistics you mentioned. I will admit, there was someone mentioned in article with the last name Christian, so perhaps that led to your confusion.

      Second, the author of the article that you cite has written a paper in which *he* decided that "hate crimes" and "terrorism" were basically the same thing (at least for the purpose of twisting numbers to make his point). Then, this author, Arie Perliger, further decided that even in cases where you couldn't show that the crime was terrorism or hate crime related, he'd make it so anyway. He says, and I quote:

      Collins’ murder, if it was motivated by racist sentiments, should be treated as an act of domestic terrorism

      So basically, any chance this guy gets, he's going to paint the picture that

      a) As many crimes as possible are hate crimes
      b) Hate crimes = Terrorism
      c) Because of a) and b), there is more non-Islamic terrorism in the U.S. than AQ/ISIS-style

      Oh, and just for fun, he decided that fundamentalist Islam was *NOT* right-wing. You know, because otherwise his argument wouldn't work.

    68. Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Your only evidence that he was gay is statements by anonymous people and people who may have mistaken him for someone else. You have only your own conjecture that self-hatred then made him kill all those people.

      On the other hand, we do have the man's own statements to the contrary about his reasons, along with findings that he self-radicalized on the Internet.

    69. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Second, the author of the article that you cite has written a paper in which *he* decided that "hate crimes" and "terrorism" were basically the same thing

      Got a problem with that? Hate crimes, in the US, are crimes that are intended to cause fear in certain groups. In what way is that not terrorism?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    70. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's actually a lot of stuff in the Bible that looks like hate and a manual for death. Whether the New Testament obsoletes the Old is a difficult question, since Jesus said two different things at two different times.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    71. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by vfs · · Score: 1

      In what way is that not terrorism?

      Okay, let’s pull that thread and see how far down the rabbit hole it takes us.

      You claim that hate crimes "are intended to cause fear in certain groups." Okay, I could potentially see how that could be true. Instilling fear is not the primary motivation for a hate crime, which is defined as "A crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds," but I can see where you’re coming from on that.

      Then what is terrorism? Well, terrorism is "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Hmm, something doesn’t sound right. Yes, there is the word "violence" in both definitions, but now terrorism must have a political component. Okay, what is political?

      Well, political means "Relating to the government or public affairs of a country" or "Relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics." Well, that was somewhat helpful, but now we need to go further down the rabbit hole.

      Politics are "The activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power" or "The activities of governments concerning the political relations between states." Huh. That doesn’t sound a lot like hate crimes to me.

      So let me make sure that I understand your argument. People are afraid during hate crimes. People are afraid during acts of terrorism. Therefore, hate crimes and terrorism are the same thing. Sorry, that is not logical.

      What you’ve instead illustrated is the new modern penchant for redefining words, ideas, and concepts to fit into a new ideological narrative. To be sure, this is something O’Brien would be proud of, as changing definitions is a great way to keep people you don’t like on their toes. But to sum up, no, hate crimes are not terrorism and should not be equated as such. Words have meaning, they have accepted definitions. Changing those definitions to meet an ideological goal (as the article author has done) is intellectually disingenuous.

    72. Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Hate crimes, in the US, tend to receive more severe penalties on the basis that they terrorize particular groups. Trying to terrorize blacks, for example, is normally intended to reduce their influence in society (among other things), which is a political act. Terrorism and hate crimes may not be quite the same thing, but they're closely related, and it's not clear where to draw the line.

      Shooting a doctor who performs abortions (which has happened) is an attempt to achieve the political goal of stopping abortions by making people who would do them afraid. That's terrorism.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  14. Re:Blame the RUSSIANS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. Let's get Watson on this. (Hey, someone back there set up a Skype call with Watson. Yes, he's done bleaching his skin, just do it, get him on Skype!) Sorry about that. Ladies and gentlemen, Paul Joseph Watson will be on in a few minutes, but in order to support our operation, we need listeners and viewers like YOU to buy our products. Available in limited supply only, Super Ape Strength combines the power of testosterone with the latest and greatest of herbal supplements, phencyclidine, mined out of secret labs far beneath the earth. Available here and only here for a limited time at [insert Slashdot clickbait link here].

  15. Re:Blame the RUSSIANS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In all honesty though, could be a government psyop. Wouldn't be the first time.

  16. Ohio Is pro fundamentalist Islamist now? by Madalik · · Score: 1

    Well "States Rights" crowd should be hopping up to defend Ohio's new stance from the Federalists soon

  17. Please learn how to use the hyphen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    State messages that are pro Islamic. That's literally what the headline is saying.

  18. Rise up America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grab your guns! Panic in the streets! The Islams are coming!

  19. Re: Blame the RUSSIANS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as there is still some official democracy, they dont have full control. They need us to surrender our last vestiges of democracy to complete the job. With the free press under their control, the internet is all we have left.

  20. Yay Islam! Diversity! Etc... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what we're supposed to cheer on, right?

  21. Re: Blame the RUSSIANS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's just what a Russian would say.

    Right Boris, it's time for another little test. This time we'll blame it on ISIS and see how much they freak out.

    OK Anna, I've selected Ohio, 10 targets ready, freak out meter currently at local normal.

  22. No News just Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I first read about this on Bloomberg; so I came here to find out about it. I was expecting to hear that it was running a Drupal CMS and that they hadn't done security updates. But all I get is this crap.

  23. Probably Running a Linux/Apache Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're probably hosting the sites on an insecure Linux/Apache server. If they were running a Windows IIS server, this wouldn't have happened.

    1. Re:Probably Running a Linux/Apache Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're probably hosting the sites on an insecure Linux/Apache server. If they were running a Windows IIS server, this wouldn't have happened.

      Netcraft says it was IIS.

  24. Why Ohio? by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

    What did Ohio ever do to anyone? I can understand Washington or New Jersey, but Ohio?

    --
    Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    1. Re:Why Ohio? by Mal-2 · · Score: 2

      Have you even watched a Browns game in the last couple decades? They were decent exactly once in that entire period and the rest may be regarded as slow torture.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    2. Re:Why Ohio? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      What did Ohio ever do to anyone? I can understand Washington or New Jersey, but Ohio?

      I suppose Ohio had hackable servers. That's the difference.

      Nobody said "let's put stuff on Ohio's website". Someone said "let's look for vulnerable servers everywhere in the country and hack everything we find that is vulnerable".

  25. Derka derka by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    mohammed jihad. Which is all these idiots ever say anyway. F islam, mohammed's bones are dust.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:Derka derka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be nice if more readers visited sites like http://jihadwatch.org/ to learn the truth about this very, very dangerous "religion"

      I'd say bomb them back to the stone age but they are already there.

    2. Re:Derka derka by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      this very, very dangerous "religion"... I'd say bomb them back to the stone age but they are already there.

      You're contradicting yourself. We can deal with stone-age terrorists.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  26. This is fine. No reason for any investigation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump supporters have been telling us all along that the Russian hacks that attempted to interfere with the election didn't matter and we shouldn't waste time and resources on investigation. I'm 'sure they'll agree that this is even less important and warrants no further investigation or preventative measures.

  27. Re: Blame the RUSSIANS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're going to jail, Bernie.

  28. One terrorist org hacking another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How amusing.

    Not even sure what I am reading is even factual and true.

  29. 4 the lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised how few /. readers stop to consider that this could just be some teenage hackers defacing "4 the lulz". Have we already forgotten about groups like Anonymous in favor of the latest sensationalist headline?

  30. Intellectual Dishonesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    False statement.

    False rebuttal.

    2010 Taimour Abdulwahab blew a car and himself up in Stockholm. Born in Baghdad, Iraq.

    Moved to Sweden before age 10 and was naturalized in 1992.

    2015 Abraham Ukbagabir stabbed two Swedes to death at IKEA after not being granted asylum, born in Eritrea.

    As you wrote, he was denied asylum and was scheduled for deportation. Furthermore the attack was within hours of being denied asylum. That's not terrorism, that's an angry asshole acting out.

    2017 Rakhmat Akilov drew a truck through people in Stockholm, born in Uzbekistan.

    Another guy rejected for asylum and under a deportation order.

    I think you need to try again, Mr/Ms AC SJW dishonest lying fuck-face.

    To recap your three examples: one was a child when he came to europe, the other two were being deported and one of those was just angry about being deported. I'm not the one being intellectually dishonest here. But I am a fuck-face, just ask your mother, she can't get enough of it when I eat her out.

    1. Re:Intellectual Dishonesty by not+flu · · Score: 1

      I'm not the one being intellectually dishonest here.

      Yes you are.

    2. Re:Intellectual Dishonesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you are.

      After careful consideration of your argument, I must say that the genius of your insight has caused me to change my mind.

    3. Re:Intellectual Dishonesty by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Moved to Sweden before age 10 and was naturalized in 1992.

      So?

      As you wrote, he was denied asylum and was scheduled for deportation. Furthermore the attack was within hours of being denied asylum. That's not terrorism, that's an angry asshole acting out.

      Did it really matter to the dead? He would still be called a refugee in Swedish media. They all were. Because the media is lying. And he tried. And plenty of Eritreans are granted asylum, why he wasn't I don't know. I think they had almost the same success rate as Syrians before, and Syrians should have had 100%.

      150,530 people got permission of residency in Sweden the last year.
      From Eritrea:
      2,406 relatives
      6,297 asylum
      At-least not enough for studies or labor from Eritrea to show in that statistics if they limit it, but I guess it make little sense for them to put a lower limit so I guess there was none.
      https://www.migrationsverket.s...

      163,000 applied for asylum in 2015.
      111,979 got a decision in 2016.
      77% of the asylum applications was accepted.
      Of these 47,000 was in the EU category "alternatively in need of protection" as it's called in Swedish and 17,000 was actual refugees by the UN definition (if you trust the administrative authority to actually do their job and make sure the claims are accurate.)
      9,491 of the "alone-coming refugee children" which is the biggest joke of them all in Swedish immigration politics was granted asylum, 86%. Fewer refugees among those I assume, plenty of them are from Afghanistan.
      79,789 applied for residency permit because of connection to someone in Sweden .. Shit which happen after the first wave, 69,768 decisions were made in 2016, 50,227 was accepted.
      53,343 applied for residency due to work, 47,184 decisions were made, 36,914 was accepted.
      21,418 applied for studies, 17,219 accepted.
      https://www.migrationsverket.s...

    4. Re:Intellectual Dishonesty by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Forgot you had written more crap.

      Another guy rejected for asylum and under a deportation order.

      So what?

      He still came here for just the same reason as the rest of the trash.

      No idea whatever we actually deport people to Eritrea. One would hope.

      Of course none of them should actually be accepted, but how does that make them any better?

      They weren't Swedes.
      They weren't home-grown.
      They did come as "refugees."

    5. Re:Intellectual Dishonesty by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Or are the fact that EU and Sweden on top of that had even more accepting rules for asylum supposed to be used against us to hide the fact the that asylum-seekers are behind for it because not all of them are genuine refugees by the UN definition?

      Whole EU let people from war stay. Whatever they do in EU shouldn't count because by the UN definition they aren't refugees?

      Do you think anyone except those who want to be dishonest and lie care?

    6. Re: Intellectual Dishonesty by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter how you try to fool people with your dishonesty.

      They will still read people from Iraq, Eritrea and Uzbekistan In Sweden as what it is and draw their own intellectual conclusions from that.

      You'll just be seen as a dishonest lying person with and agenda trolling, wasting time and ruining communication.

    7. Re: Intellectual Dishonesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! Now FOUR chimp-out posts.
      You are one massively triggered little snowflake!
      Its so fucking awesome to see a racist have a meltdown like the one you are giving us.
      You and Anders Brevik are butt-buddies, aren't you?

    8. Re: Intellectual Dishonesty by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Wow! Now FOUR chimp-out posts.
      You are one massively triggered little snowflake!
      Its so fucking awesome to see a racist have a meltdown like the one you are giving us.
      You and Anders Brevik are butt-buddies, aren't you?

      No.
      I'd be his friend for sure.

  31. One is born muslim by XXongo · · Score: 2

    Furthermore, nobody is born a Muslim;

    Nope. A little google searching:

    Muslim children follow their Muslim parents. Hence the one who has two Muslim parents is deemed to be a Muslim, so he may inherit or be inherited from, and if he dies he is to be washed and buried, the funeral prayer is to be offered for him and he is to be buried in the Muslim graveyard. And in the Hereafter he will be one of the people of Paradise, according to scholarly consensus.
    The Shaafa‘i scholar an-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The one whose parents, or one of them, are Muslim is also regarded as a Muslim with regard to rulings concerning the hereafter and worldly matters. End quote from Sharh Muslim, 16/208
    The Hanbali scholar Ibn Qudaamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The child follows his parents in both realms (i.e., this world and the hereafter). If the parents are of different religions, then he must follow the one who is Muslim, such as the child of a Muslim man from a kitaabi (i.e., Jewish or Christian) woman. End quote from al-Mughni, 10/91.

    ...people choose to be Muslim and can change at any time. .

    Nope. Once one is a Muslim, leaving Islam is defined as apostasy, and in most Muslim countries, is punishable by death.
    https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/apostasy.aspx

    I disagree with prejudice and discrimination against Muslims, or against anybody on the basis of their religion, but that's not reason to underplay how oppressive the religion is.

  32. Re: Blame the RUSSIANS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. Donald TRUMP likely PAYED OFF the Russians to do this. Who else would be so evil?

  33. Re: Blame the RUSSIANS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Things a Russian might say to throw you off the scent, no 853. See how this works?

  34. Wake Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Wake up freedom-loving Americans. Radical Islam infiltrating the heartland."

    Yeah! This is radical Christianity territory!

  35. They've lost already by bazorg · · Score: 2

    These guys are toast. They didn't licence the music properly.

  36. Re:Biased data set [Re:Most Slashdot readers are.. by Wootery · · Score: 1

    You're right that the LRA is a huge deal, and you may be right that right-wing extremism is a real factor in the USA. (Even the left is getting violent these days.) Speaking of my own England though, our terror tends to be the Islamic variety.

    Every time there's a violent incident in the west, we all wait to find the ideology behind it, and if it's Islam, it's labelled "terrorism" and if it's not, it's labelled "a nut job."

    Go ahead and list for me the UK terrorist incidents which the oh-so-racist media have been denying.

    The British media were falling over themselves to refer to the Finsburys incident as terrorism, precisely because non-Islamist terror is such a break form the norm here.

    When it's a Christian attacking, you move to "as far as we know he wasn't motivated by his own religion."

    You're assuming that because we're talking about a white British male, he must be Christian. As far as I can tell, we're not really sure what religion he held, if any. Britain being Britain, the odds are pretty good that he's non-religious.

    Anyway, about the assumption you describe: pretty much, yes, because it generally isn't the case. Here in England, we really don't have a problem with Christianity-inspired violence.

    Of course, jihadists aren't normally quiet about their motivations. We can be quite certain the Borough Market attackers were religiously inspired, as they were shouting about it at the time.

    Do you take the same attitude of examining the details of their religion and saying it's not terrorism when it is an attack by a Muslim motivated by "a mad hatred of all Christians"?

    I wasn't clear here, but I'm not denying that the Finsbury incident counts as terrorism. The fact that I referred to him as a nutter doesn't mean I'm denying that it's an act of terrorism -- of course it's terrorism. I'll gladly use 'nutter' to refer to the men who committed the Borough Market attack, too.

    Anyway, sure -- not every terrorist act committed by a muslim has to pertain to Islamism.

    That doesn't mean I'm a racist imperialist who's just making assumptions, though. Again, jihadists don't leave us to figure out their motivations; we're talking about people who go on the rampage screaming about how it's for their god.

    That's another example of biased data taking-- so, apparently, wherever you live, attacks on Muslims aren't news, while attacks by Muslims are.

    'Apparently'? What? You've not presented any relevant numbers here. Hypothesising an epidemic of anti-muslim violence isn't the same as demonstrating that one both exists, and is being systematically ignored by the mainstream media.

    Left-leaning media like the Guardian and BBC are not shy to report anti-muslim violence. There's little lethal violence in that category, at least in the UK.

  37. We're not falling for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shame on you for making Muslims look bad. Nice try. Pick someone else, cowards.

  38. Re:Blame the Obama courts by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Absolutely. Someone from Over There got into this country, snuck into the OH governor's mansion when no one was looking, and installed his own Web pages.

    And then snuck out, with no one the wiser.

  39. explain it away [Re:Biased data set] by XXongo · · Score: 1
    When you explain away attacks by Christians on Muslims by saying "he's just a nutter" and "as far as I can tell, we're not really sure what religion he held, if any", then you have biased your data set.

    Historically, in Britain the vast majority of terror attacks have been religiously motivated by Christian sects, primarily the IRA and affiliated groups, and the Ulster Defence Association/Ulster Freedom Fighters and affiliated groups.

    1. Re:explain it away [Re:Biased data set] by Wootery · · Score: 1

      When you explain away attacks by Christians on Muslims by saying "he's just a nutter" and "as far as I can tell, we're not really sure what religion he held, if any", then you have biased your data set.

      No, I'm not biasing my data set. Yet again: we don't yet know his motivations. We don't even know if he's a Christian! He could very well be an atheist, and even if he's a Christian, that doesn't necessarily mean his motivations were rooted in his religion.

      There's no double-standard here.

      Historically, in Britain the vast majority of terror attacks have been religiously motivated by Christian sects, primarily the IRA and affiliated groups

      Historically yes, that's true -- and the body-count dwarfs what we see today. These days though, the terror we see here is almost exclusively Islamic.

      Islamic terrorism has 'scaled' in a way that the IRA didn't. The world at large doesn't care about the parochial complaints of the IRA, or for the LRA's message, but Islamic terrorism has been able to inspire attacks worldwide.

  40. Help me APKenobi your our only dope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they should have used some sort of hosts file engine or something
    What that won't do jack against a real attacker, that must be all lies
    Maybe you can have an Intel rant that might work
    If all those fail there is always: threats of violence, name calling, swearing, posting replies to yourself, quoting people out of context, linking to your old comments, pretending you are in a movie, bitching about fake names and AC posts, poor grammar, or reliving your glory days when Win95 was new.

  41. Triggered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy shit! Three yelling, screaming response dripping with xenophobic animus.
    Triggered much?

  42. They probably did even more... by iq145 · · Score: 1

    Massive Ransomware Attack Spreading Around the World http://www.newser.com/story/24...