Ramblings of an old Doc

 

Our wonderful patriots, Anonymous are claiming having taken down the CIA website (probably using malware infested bot computers) most likely with DNS attacks. Worse, they stole the names, addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and Social Security numbers of some 46,000 people from the State of Alabama website.

Well, I suppose it was to be expected. Now Anonymous has made another terroristic threat. This time the would be champion of the downtrodden has issued poorly veiled anti-Semitic threats using the old, hackneyed and fallacious references of the “Elders of Zion” variety (ruling the media, etc.) and vowed a “Crusade” (the historical Crusades involved the mass murder of Jews, among others) in three parts. The voice is disguised in the video released on Youtube. Very brave, Anonymous. Glad there’s software which reverses that.

The first – probably the old, boring DNS attacks/SQL injections to “remove Israel from the internet”. Step two “will be later disclosed and is already in initiation.” The third stage is unclear, but won’t stop until “the police state becomes a free state.”

“Step one will be initiated after the release of this video and will be comprised of systematically removing you from the internet. Step two will be later disclosed and is already in initiation; and, as for step three, well, think of this one as a present from Anonymous to you – we will not stop until the police state becomes a free state. We are Anonymous, we are legion, we do not forgive, we do not forget. Israeli government expect us.”

Well, in its usual overblown, doublespeak tradition, the aggressor is defined as the underdog and the attacked as the aggressor. With no knowledge of history or truth, they plan attacks on Israel which has done nothing to these self styled arbiters of justice. Further, they accuse Israel of planning a nuclear holocaust. One: It’s Iran that’s trying to get the bomb, stupid. Two: Do not steal the name of that which was perpetrated on the Jews and accuse them of trying to do that to others.

At any rate, I’m really hoping Israel and its newly created IDF Cyber Command hands Anonymous its butt, and ends up revealing who they are and causes their capture, and conviction. This time, they’re taking on folks the Technion (Israel’s M.I.T.) produced, and tech gurus like you wouldn’t believe. It’s not for no reason that MS, Apple, Intel and other high tech power houses chose to buy Israeli tech companies and open centers of development in Israel.

Oh yes, Anonymous. I have such fond hopes for you criminal Lochsley “wanna be”s.


Comments (Page 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on Feb 15, 2012

 

By the way JCD-Bionicman, it is a HUGE pet peeve of mine to see people spelling the word "your" when they are implying the contraction for "you are".  Please, please spell it "you're" in the future.  Thanks!  

 

 

JCD-Bionicman

Quoting the_Monk, reply 40

'Policing' the world isn't working.

No, our current foreign policy isnt working.

While it is correct that indeed your foreign policy isn't working; it is in fact the overall attitude of 'policing' [the world] which contributes to same.

JCD-Bionicman

reaching into someone else's back pocket never ends well.

Your implying that America is stealing from other countries? How? Who? What are we stealing? We invade, set up democratic governments, and in return the people like us and so trade their goods. Thats not to say that its okay for our businesses to go overseas and exploit other countries, but that isnt a direct result of invasion. Its a separate problem that calls for regulation.

Actually I was implying nothing more than attempting to run someone else's life using subversive methods.  Of course since you opened this other can of worms.........no regulation will ever prevent or even begin to control conflict for the purposes of gain (whether it be social or economical).  Also, please refrain from referring to the installation of [puppet] governing bodies as 'democracy' it doesn't make your point very well.  Likewise, "the people like us and so trade their goods"?   Are you sure you're not just playing a video game and transferring said in-game 'diplomacy' onto real world interests?

JCD-Bionicman

Invasion for any other reason [other than defense] is about suppression and subversion nothing more.

Ahh, but our being in the middle east is an act of defense. America always seeks a bigger stick, so as to be better equipped to negotiate and demand of other countries. By always being more powerful, we dont have to worry about defending ourselves because nations are too scared to defy us in the first place. It IS justified, so long as we american people make sure we elect the right politicians.

I did not say "other than defense" (what is the sense in quoting me if you EDIT my words?).  I said other than to stop an aggressor intent on suppression of neighbouring nations (i.e.. WW2 Germany).  Please tell me you understand the difference.  Using your example it might be wonderful for the US's defense to use Canada as a giant 'buffer zone' and maybe set up missile silos etc. within our borders so should we just 'be cool' with the fact that since doing so would serve the defense interests of the US and oh well....?

Violating the rest of the world's 'rights' in order to claim security for oneself is the epitome of self-interest.  Really no wonder the rest of the world feels the way it does with regard to the US with that kind of viewpoint.

JCD-Bionicman

When a nation decides to invade another and civillians (as they invariably will) get killed this is a direct result of said invasion and nothing else.

Exactly; casualties happen. Military leaders (at least nowdays) are taught to minimize casualties as much as possible, but unfortunately such is the consequence of war: casualties. Its no different than when someone gets in an accident and kills some people. Yes there are reckless drivers, and drunk ones, but not all drivers that end up accidentally killing people deserve blame. Sometimes accidents just happen. As for the people that are reckless, they should be courmartialed which they are 99% of the time.

99% of the time the perpetrators of injustice against civilians in conflict operations are courtmartialed?  Where are these stats coming from.... ?!?

JCD-Bionicman

The few DO define the many.

I understand what your saying actually. The few CAN give a false pretense about the true definition of the many, but in the end the many do indeed truly define the many.

It's not a 'false pre tense' if the many do not correct what the few are doing.  Which is why as I already stated....the few DO define the many.


JCD-Bionicman

Keeping America's power above that of other nations?  What are we in grade-school here?  My dad is bigger/stronger than yours.

It has nothing to do with "oh I am powerful and better than you" and everything to do with bettering our nations strengths against people that want to see it fall by using the same methods of strengthening their nation (invading, occupying, negotiating (in other words foreign policy)).

Foreign policy is not a 'competition' and most certainly should never include words such as invading and/or occupying.     We canadians tend to see things such as education, healthcare and agricultural training resources that can help establish local government policy in under-privileged nations who ask for our help as our 'foreign policy'.  Invading and occupying nations isn't even on our radar.

on Feb 15, 2012

tetleytea
Because Israel has no intention of eradicationg and exterminating another people.

An amazingly ironic statement, considering Israel was first established by none other than eradicating and exterminating another people.

Who? Who did Israel eradicate and exterminate?

 

on Feb 15, 2012


There is ALWAYS a reason for an 'accident'...so much so that the cutesy term 'accident' is simply to appease Joe Public.

You are confusing cause with purpose. Every "accident" has a cause, but that does not mean it had a purpose (intention) and that is what makes it an accident.

on Feb 15, 2012

Rishkith
You are confusing cause with purpose. Every "accident" has a cause, but that does not mean it had a purpose (intention) and that is what makes it an accident.

No...I am NOT confusing anything at all.

It is no 'accident' if someone exceeds the safe traffic conditions through speed and/or inattention.

It is no 'accident' if the person responsible for the car's road-worthiness has failed to maintain it correctly.

It is SIMPLY DEFINED as an 'accident' so as not to LEGITIMATELY scare the fuck out of incompetent road users.

Vehicular collisions, be they with other cars and/or road furniture are ALWAYS caused by incompetence....sometimes it's even defined as 'criminal incompetence'....however, perhaps not nearly enough...or not sufficiently penalized.

on Feb 15, 2012

It has always been 'quaint' that on Motor Racing tickets there's a warning...."Motor Racing is dangerous....." as a disclaimer against [most] issues of culpability and responsibility for the safety of the public....

What'd be more clever would be a BIG NOTICE on receipt of your new driving licence....." There is a significant possibility that YOU will die, or be significantly injured while travelling in your motor vehicle, either by your own failing and/or that of other road users."

Probably would sober up one or two....

Maybe.

I am an FIM / FIA Observer for the MotoGP and Formula One... and it's my job to document/report 'accidents' and can safely say none of them is ACCIDENTAL, however often they can be UNAVOIDABLE for some of the 'participants'.

It all got a bit silly when the Police 'section' that investigated traffic collisions was called "The Accident Appreciation Squad".

I think perhaps someone finally realised how 'odd' that title really was.

"What do ya reckon, Davo....was that a good prang or what?.... Score out of 10?" ....

on Feb 15, 2012

 

I would be building a bomb in my basement as well. Not that Iran is, they comply with inspections

If that was US, they would attack the very 1st one. Remember Cuba?

Iran allow inspectors? Sure 

"We have always been open with regards to our nuclear issues and the IAEA team coming to Iran can make the necessary inspections," Ali-Akbar Velayati, advisor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told the ISNA news agency.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/un-nuclear-inspectors-arrive-in-iran-for-talks-report-says-1.409784


Israel allow inspectors? Fuck that

"Israel will not cooperate in any matter with this resolution which is only aiming at reinforcing political hostilities and lines of division in the Middle East region," chief Israeli delegate David Danieli told the chamber.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/18/us-nuclear-iaea-sb-idUSTRE58H3QW20090918




Edit. 
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2011/11/iran-and-the-iaea.html 

on Feb 15, 2012

All this talk about America.......let's make sure we're making sense.

on Feb 15, 2012

We've got to give away all our rights, freedoms and liberty immediately so this threat can be stopped!

Quick everyone hurry!  Give up the rights now cause if we wait too long we may not be able to give them up later!  Help, we're not giving 'em up fast enough! How are we supposed to stop the bad guys with all these pesky things called rights standing in the way?

Oh what a world what a world what a world what a world.

 

 

 

The rush for Iran is because it's estimated future oil scarcity will rise due to China's great industrial growth so Israel is scared the US will stab them in the back to get Iranian fuel.  That is unless Iran gets invaded early by someone but nuclear capabilities will take that option off the table.  I read it in a (public) think tank report during all my bottomless boredom time glory days while in the military.  If only active service could be more like Modern Warfare.

So there you go people.  There is all the hoopla the media doesn't want you to worry your pretty little heads off.

on Feb 15, 2012

myfist0
Iran allow inspectors? Sure

"We have always been open with regards to our nuclear issues and the IAEA team coming to Iran can make the necessary inspections," Ali-Akbar Velayati, advisor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told the ISNA news agency.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/un-nuclear-inspectors-arrive-in-iran-for-talks-report-says-1.409784[/quote]

myfist0 - the rest of the article went on to say

"There has been speculation in Iran that the IAEA team might be allowed to visit the Fordo uranium enrichment facility south of the capital Tehran, which will become operational next month.  However, sources close to the Vienna-based IAEA said the visit would not involve inspections of nuclear facilities but would focus on resuming talks on Iran's disputed nuclear program, which the West suspects has a military dimension. Iran has since 2008 declined to fully cooperate with the IAEA and denies it is seeking a nuclear bomb."

They were not given permission to inspect Fordo. Fordo is the facility in which the Uranium is taken beyond 20% (the concentration 'critical' point beyond which making a bomb is the clear goal).

In fact, Iran has consistently and repeatedly refused complete inspection.

[quote who="myfist0" reply="51" id="3083711"] Israel allow inspectors? Fuck that


"Israel will not cooperate in any matter with this resolution which is only aiming at reinforcing political hostilities and lines of division in the Middle East region," chief Israeli delegate David Danieli told the chamber.

Again myfist0, the rest of the quote states the reason Israel refused it:

"(Reuters) - Arab states in the U.N. nuclear assembly on Friday won narrow approval of a resolution urging Israel to put all its atomic sites under U.N. inspection and join the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Jewish state deplored the measure for singling it out while many of its Islamic neighbors remained hostile to its existence, and said it would not cooperate with it."

and buried in it:

"U.N. Security Council members Russia and China backed the Israel resolution, passed by a 49-45 margin by the IAEA's annual member states gathering. The vote split along Western and developing nation lines. There were 16 abstentions."

Those "developing countries" are overwhelmingly Moslem. The 16 abstentions? The morally bankrupt. 

In light of what they did to the UN resolution regarding Syria, their "interest" in the region is very transparent and has to do with their support for totalitarian regimes rather than any interest in peace.

Also, there may be a double standard here, but here's Israel's justification for it: It's a concentrated list by year of Ahmadinahad's hate and threats: http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm

As for the rest of the Arab world, simple review of the imbalance of the massed might and intent to destroy Israel (for the past 60+ years) as well as their hatred of Jews more than justifies Israel's need for an ultimate deterrant.

Now for the simplest truth of all: Were the Arabs and Iranians to lay down their arms and promise recognition and peace, there would be peace. Were Israel to lay down its arms? There would be no Israel.

I trust that will end this absurd argument.

 



on Feb 16, 2012

It's not absurd at all...

No-one should be exempt from having thier nuclear capabilities 'policed'.

No-one.

It doesn't matter what the motivation/retalliation/bullshit reason.... when some dickhead from ANY country goes ballistic [literally] the WHOLE WORLD is fucked by it.

I don't care whether it's the US...China...India...Russia...Afghanistan...Israel....

All it takes is ONE FUCKWIT with a finger.....

I Kinda lost 'faith' in Israel's motives and ethical standards when they used REAL Australians' identities [passports] to engage in subversive action.... not even fake identities...REAL PEOPLE.

That's identity theft on about as significant a scale as it gets.

Living, innocent  Individuals from half a world away had their identity stolen by the Israeli 'govt' to hide what they were doing.

What'd Australians ever do to them?

That's about as pathetic as the French secret service BOMBING the Rainbow Warrior in another country's port [NZ].  THAT was an 'act of war'...and THEY got 2 years holiday for Christ's sake for their 'crime' of International terrorism and murder.

on Feb 16, 2012

It's not absurd at all...

No-one should be exempt from having thier nuclear capabilities 'policed'.

No-one.

It doesn't matter what the motivation/retalliation/bullshit reason.... when some dickhead from ANY country goes ballistic [literally] the WHOLE WORLD is fucked by it.

I don't care whether it's the US...China...India...Russia...Afghanistan...Israel....

All it takes is ONE FUCKWIT with a finger.....

I Kinda lost 'faith' in Israel's motives and ethical standards when they used REAL Australians' identities [passports] to engage in subversive action.... not even fake identities...REAL PEOPLE.

That's identity theft on about as significant a scale as it gets.

Living, innocent  Individuals from half a world away had their identity stolen by the Israeli 'govt' to hide what they were doing.

What'd Australians ever do to them?

That's about as pathetic as the French secret service BOMBING the Rainbow Warrior in another country's port [NZ].  THAT was an 'act of war'...and THEY got 2 years holiday for Christ's sake for their 'crime' of International terrorism and murder.

Spy agencies do what they do... And Mossad happened to have asked permission from those people who lent the Mossad those passports.

As for inspection? As long as it's unilateral? Forget it. The U.S. and Soviets only agreed when it was mutual. Forget Israel giving away critical nuclear (or any) security/military info just because you might think it should. Forget 'should' when it comes to survival.

Why is it Israel is always demanded to obey the double standard, I wonder: One standard for Israel, and a totally different one for everyone else?

on Feb 16, 2012

the_Monk


By the way JCD-Bionicman, it is a HUGE pet peeve of mine to see people spelling the word "your" when they are implying the contraction for "you are".  Please, please spell it "you're" in the future.  Thanks!


No. Ill continue to write words how I wish. Thanks for the understanding.

While it is correct that indeed your foreign policy isn't working; it is in fact the overall attitude of 'policing' [the world] which contributes to same.


How do you think the world would be if Iran just... got its way, or the Soviet Union got its way in the Cold War? No, dont answer that question, its meant to be rhetorical.

Actually I was implying nothing more than attempting to run someone else's life using subversive methods.

Please, elaborate.

Of course since you opened this other can of worms no regulation will ever prevent or even begin to control conflict for the purposes of gain (whether it be social or economical)

Where did you get this idea?

[puppet] governing bodies [can hardly be considered democracies]

What puppet governments? Youve been playing too many games (or watching too many movies) methinks. Anyways, If there are puppet governments that we've set up, that is a separate issue from whether we should be policing the world or not. Last time I checked kids were just starting to go to school for the first time in... forever over there.

Likewise, "the people like us and so trade their goods"?   Are you sure you're not just playing a video game and transferring said in-game 'diplomacy' onto real world interests?


We've freed them from tyranny, given them democracy (a means for them to make decisions for their country collectively rather than them following some dictator), and continue to occupy their land to defend it from Iran and the surrounding terrorist network of alquida (how the hell do you spell that anyways?). Why then, other than the terrorists, would the people have cause to be unhappy?


I did not say "other than defense"

When you invade another country in defense of you or your allies... thats.... defense.

Using your example it might be wonderful for the US's defense to use Canada as a giant 'buffer zone' and maybe set up missile silos etc. within our borders so should we just 'be cool' with the fact that since doing so would serve the defense interests of the US and oh well....?

We'd take the diplomatic approach, because we're nice, but if the matter was pressing enough (like as in, the possibility of WW3) we'd eventually take the position by force if no other options were available. The ends do justify the means.


Violating the rest of the world's 'rights' in order to claim security for oneself is the epitome of self-interest.

If you actually go back and read through history, our dealings with other countries have always been more or less mutual.

Really no wonder the rest of the world feels the way it does with regard to the US with that kind of viewpoint.


If you hate America, you are either brainwashed by your country into thinking as much, smoke too much pot, or you actually have a legitimate reason for thinking as much because youve been exploited by its corporations. If you have been a legitimate victim of America's corporations, its because you live in a non-democratic country in the first place though. Anyways, corporations are always going to fuck people over and they continue to fuck us americans over here as well. That doesnt mean you go throwing the baby out with the bathwater.



99% of the time the perpetrators of injustice against civilians in conflict operations are courtmartialed?  Where are these stats coming from.... ?!?


What have you heard or experienced to the contrary, or what is your reasoning?



It's not a 'false pre tense' if the many do not correct what the few are doing.  Which is why as I already stated....the few DO define the many.


If the many do not try to correct the few, that doesnt always mean that they dont want to. Such is prevalent throughout history. Actually, if what your implying is that the Iraqi's and others hate us, and the evidence is that "they dont try to stop the bombings and dont try to stop the terrorists themselves" well then think about that logic for a minute. In terms of politics and such, there is always a silent majority. Right now the terrorists are the roaring minority.


Invading and occupying nations isn't even on our radar.

And neither is it on ours. Most often than not, we like to use the term "liberating", because thats pretty much always what it is.

on Feb 16, 2012

JCD-Bionicman
Quoting DrJBHL, reply 46 By the way JCD-Bionicman, it is a HUGE pet peeve of mine to see people spelling the word "your" when they are implying the contraction for "you are". Please, please spell it "you're" in the future. Thanks!No. Ill continue to write words how I wish. Thanks for the understanding.

JCD-Bionicman, That's not my quote. It's the_Monk's.

I do however try to keep my homonyms, homographs and homophones straight.

on Feb 16, 2012

DrJBHL

Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 57Quoting DrJBHL, reply 46 By the way JCD-Bionicman, it is a HUGE pet peeve of mine to see people spelling the word "your" when they are implying the contraction for "you are". Please, please spell it "you're" in the future. Thanks!No. Ill continue to write words how I wish. Thanks for the understanding.

JCD-Bionicman, That's not my quote. It's the_Monk's.

I do however try to keep my homonyms, homographs and homophones straight.

Thats weird how that happened... yeah I know thats not your quote. Im editing it.

on Feb 16, 2012

Thanks.

6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6