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."
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!
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.
"...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.
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
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).
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.
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. .. 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.
Checked the Charlie Hebdo attackers and those where born in France, but by Algerian parents. Doesn't really make things better
But you're wrong when claim all of them has been born here.
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
I assume you never heard of the IRA.
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 *
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 *
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 *
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.
>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 *
""Known to security services" at best means they have been arrested for actual crimes before."
No it doesn't.
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 *