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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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 *