Skip

A coalition of 13 nations
September 14, 2001 4:32 PM   Subscribe

A coalition of 13 nations declares war on those nations who are implicated in this attack. (There's nothing more dangerous than 300 angry teenagers.)
posted by Steven Den Beste (25 comments total)

 
HaXoRs Unite...or something.
posted by schlomo at 4:37 PM on September 14, 2001


"The way most of us see it; most of the hackers are anywhere from 14 years old to 18 years old," he said. "This is the only way we can do anything about (Tuesday's attack)."

I have a feeling Uncle Sam could very well remind them by mail that there is another, less voluntary way they can do something about it.
posted by skyscraper at 4:40 PM on September 14, 2001


Oh dear, all of this jingoistic "destroy all the terrorists and those who harbor them and those who live near them and those who look like them" talk has inspired a bunch of kids to enforce their own vigilante justice. Great. What's it going to prove, kids? If you're lucky, you'll hit some terrorists and enrage them some more. Good idea. Guess who's going to pay the consequences for your actions? It sure won't be your smug little asses, drinking Jolt in your parents' basement.

Ugh, this pisses me off. Yes we're all frustrated and angry right now, but let cooler heads prevail, okay? We'll find the culprits in time.
posted by turaho at 4:41 PM on September 14, 2001


Gotta hack somethin'
posted by geoff. at 4:54 PM on September 14, 2001


"(There's nothing more dangerous than 300 angry teenagers.)"

sometimes you only need 2.

*cough*columbine*cough*
posted by jcterminal at 4:57 PM on September 14, 2001


Speaking of a smug ass, turaho, it's a great worry to enrage the terrorists. You just stay pissed and hide while others do something useful.
posted by semmi at 4:58 PM on September 14, 2001


Erm.. I thought Afghanisatn actually stopped net access for its people? How many Palestinians do you think have net access too?

These hackers are well kitted out, 300 hackers with 1,100 comps, almost 3 comps each - goddamn, I have trouble using one at a time.. Maybe its like something outta star trek with Data? We have obviously evolved..

If Bin Laden has a computer with net access up their in the Afghan hills, then I am a donkey's mother (or other suitably ridiculous phrase). If a terrorist group wants anonymity, all they have to do is use public pay phones, tch...

I reckon we should try and harness the boundless energy and ingenuity of these late teens for the benefit of mankind - any ideas?

btw anyone remember Project China? I don't, so I take it it wasn't that great a success?
posted by Mossy at 5:07 PM on September 14, 2001


U.S.-China hacker brawl draws few Web combatants

I remember the news on CNN.com -- most boxes affected were Windows NT. Of course, everybody already knows Linux boxes are more secure.... heh.
posted by linux at 5:15 PM on September 14, 2001


The article gave me a much needed chuckle. The mental picture is of some script kiddies going "like, I've got this script that'll totally shred his hotmail account" maybe they'll turn his website into a pr0n server

I reckon we should try and harness the boundless energy and ingenuity of these late teens for the benefit of mankind - any ideas?

I'm bracing for a flood of quake mods with a middle-eastern theme
posted by muppetfiend at 5:22 PM on September 14, 2001


All this will accomplish is taking away the online voice of any innocent people in those nations trying to express their point of view, and keep news agencies or legitimate services in those countries from doing business. Yay. GREAT idea.
posted by bcwinters at 5:25 PM on September 14, 2001


Ironically, the skills they're going to hone by this are exactly the type of thing the US has been trying to crack down on. Your enemy's enemy is now your enemy. Or something like that.

Nice to know they're targeting ISPs in general in these countries. Free speech anyone?

Script kiddies go home.

I have a feeling Uncle Sam could very well remind them by mail that there is another, less voluntary way they can do something about it.

But I've got carpel tunnel from all that patriotic hacking I've been doing! Look at all the sites I've 0wn3D!
posted by skallas at 5:26 PM on September 14, 2001


um, not that I think script kiddies are a good thing, but if they are 14-18 yrs. old, then for the most part they are not going to be involuntarily "helping." which, the way I read that quote, was sort of the point. we can't blow things up, so let's code them to death!
posted by epersonae at 5:31 PM on September 14, 2001


um. i second the statement...it's not like there's a whole hell of a lot to hack in the middle east.
posted by dogmatic at 5:51 PM on September 14, 2001


Hey, donkey's mother: Terror groups hide behind Web encryption.
posted by ericost at 5:53 PM on September 14, 2001


must not let myself get drawn out... stay calm... must not...

Useful? Like what? Throwing stones at Arab-Americans?

dammit.

Seriously, there seem to be two schools of thought on the political aspect of this situation (leaving the personal aside for now, because we are all saddened, no argument there.)

On one side, we've got people whose first concern is to get the terrorists no matter what and punish them. They're looking for the short-term solution... "I want the people who did this dead." Take this thought to an extreme and we get people like Ann Coulter who wants the guilty punished even if we have to rub out a few innocent people along the way.

On the other side are the apologists who say that America's foreign policy had a lot to do with provoking the attacks. They're looking at the long-term solution... "How do we prevent this from happening in the future?" Take that to an extreme and you're practically a terrorist sympathizer.

Compound that with the anger, frustration, and sadness we're all feeling, and you've got one hell of a mix. Passions are running high, and I'm afraid people (and governments) are going to start doing crazy things without thinking the consequences through. Like these hacker kids. I'm not so much pissed at them as I am at the attitude that we've got to get revenge right now, even if it means killing people who weren't involved. I don't have to say it, I'm sure, but not everyone in Afghanistan/Iraq/wherever was in on the attacks. But in our rush for revenge, it seems like we don't care. It's a rabid and indiscriminate desire to see your enemies destroyed that inspired the attacks, and just because we won't hide like cowards afterwards doesn't mean we'd be any less guilty.

If you haven't guessed, I fall in the latter, non-extreme, camp. I don't think the attacks were justified. But I want to know what provoked them and work on that. Now is not the time for spite. It's the time to heal, find justice (not revenge), and rethink our country's role in the world.

So, a couple of kids mess up a few NT boxes. Who's it going to help? Nobody. There are so many more productive things we can all be doing, like volunteering, donating blood, giving of our time and money, and fighting against the bigots who can't see the difference between the Muslim who lives down the street and the Muslim terrorist.

And our government should continue doing what's it doing--looking for the culprits, and punishing them when they find them. I hope that doesn't lead to a war... just because the attacks were a "declaration of war" doesn't mean we have to retaliate in kind. That way of thinking has a "But Mom, he started it" feel to it. If we bomb entire nations for the acts of the few, we are no better than the terrorists. Go ahead and call me a coward, I just don't think violence is the answer, whether its done by a covert terrorist group or by a resolution of Congress.

Please forgive the rant. I guess it's been bottled up in me for a while and I just needed to spit it out. Flame away.
posted by turaho at 6:10 PM on September 14, 2001


hiya ericost Donkey's brother here, mom's out...

X-Rated pictures? When they force their women to cover all areas of skin? (hey, they're extremists after all..). Uh-huh..

I'm confused. We say bin Laden is the only one who could have done this as normal groups lack the sophistication to do something like this.

"But Hamas, Hezbollah and bin Laden's groups have very sophisticated, well-educated people. Their technical equipment is good, and they have the bright, young minds to operate them."

And now give me a reason why, having established that Hezbollah are full of sophisticated, well-educated people, with logically more intelligent leaders, they weren't responsible? Or Hamas? Why are we pinning the blame on bin Laden?

U.S. officials and militant Muslim groups say terrorists began using encryption — which scrambles data and then hides the data in existing images — about five years ago.

Eh? Militant Muslim groups are saying this? Why on Earth would Ahmed Jabril say something like that? ie, here's how we're trying to send them, crack em if you can!

Ah, and you still haven't proven he has net access - once you do that you can call me any name you like :)

btw turaho, I agree with your comment (that I've just seen), and so do lots of other people. Everyone's entitled to their own point of view, right? Flaming is wrong, let the logical arguments flow.. Peace..
posted by Mossy at 6:14 PM on September 14, 2001


If you haven't guessed, I fall in the latter, non-extreme, camp. I don't think the attacks were justified. But I want to know what provoked them and work on that.

So if you found out that it was foreign policy that causes anti-American hate does that turn you into this?

On the other side are the apologists who say that America's foreign policy *SNIP* and you're practically a terrorist sympathizer.

I have yet to see a terrorist sympathizer on this board. If you think discussing world events especially those in the region many think we're about to attack is sympathy for the terrorists and not sympathy for the civillians living there I do believe you have a bigger problem than I can address.
posted by skallas at 6:21 PM on September 14, 2001


>Ah, and you still haven't proven he has net access - once
>you do that you can call me any name you like :)

If I told you that the head of the Taliban says they've taken Bin Laden's internet access away, would that prove he had internet access?

He says the Taliban have isolated bin Laden and have taken away his fax machine, satellite phone, cell phone, computers and his Internet access. -- from CNN

I think I'll call you "Mossy".
posted by ericost at 6:26 PM on September 14, 2001


Ah, and you still haven't proven he has net access - once

Bin Ladin the monk is a myth. He's a multimillionaire who heads a terrorist network whose main goal is the overthrow of all governments that do not follow his groups version of the Koran. If you can afford internet access, his people can afford a T3.

He's smarter, richer, and more psychotic than the "poor revolutionary in the mountain" propaganda.

There's a nice background link on bin Ladin somewhere on the MeFi frontpage.
posted by skallas at 6:34 PM on September 14, 2001


Bin Laden has an estimated $300 million dollars in assets, which he is no doubt using to fund his campaign. The United States has already frozen a good deal of that, but he obviously has enough to keep going.

Now, if these kids are going to use their 'l33t skilz' just to cause a bunch of denial of service attacks on Afghani ISPs, then yes, they are wasting their time in a very dangerous way. But if they could find some way to effect Bin Laden's financial holdings, or at least find some records that would give investigators a money trail, I say it's worth a shot, and God bless 'em if it works.
posted by Hildago at 7:03 PM on September 14, 2001


According to the Talibans, Bin Ladin doesn't even have a phone, and i would be surprised if they even had a telephone line in that mud hut of his.

Also, he is a son of a MULTIMILLIONAIRE. the wealth is in the family which means his brothers and sisters share it too and since he's exiled, i'm sure he doesn't have access to it, especially since there is not even a damn bank in afganistan.
posted by incubus at 7:06 PM on September 14, 2001


incubus, from foxnews:

Usama bin Laden was unusual. The son of a Saudi construction magnate went into the rugged Afghan mountains to fight, gaining a reputation for bravery and determination. He used his millions to buy bulldozers to gouge guerrilla trails in the heart of Afghanistan, and to bring in, by his count, thousands of Egyptians, Lebanese, Turks and others to join their Afghan Muslim brothers in the struggle against an ideology that spurned religion.



More


Nine years after the Soviets retreated from Afghanistan, terrorism experts say bin Laden is using his millions to fund attacks against the United States like, perhaps, the Aug. 7 twin bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed 257 people.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480,00.html
posted by skallas at 7:28 PM on September 14, 2001


If you think discussing world events especially those in the region many think we're about to attack is sympathy for the terrorists ... you have a bigger problem than I can address.

I don't think that at all. I think it is our moral responsiblity to address not only America's foreign policy, but also the policies of other countries. The point I was trying to make is if you take that to an unfortunate extreme you might excuse other countries' culpability and blame it all on America--that we somehow "deserved" what happened. This is of course ridiculous. But I've seen a lot of people (on MeFi, even) try to argue that questioning America's actions = sympathizing with terrorists.
posted by turaho at 9:10 PM on September 14, 2001


image vs reality? I would like to go back to this point:

"But Hamas, Hezbollah and bin Laden's groups have very sophisticated, well-educated people. Their technical equipment is good, and they have the bright, young minds to operate them."

And now give me a reason why, having established that Hezbollah are full of sophisticated, well-educated people, with logically more intelligent leaders, they weren't responsible? Or Hamas? Why are we pinning the blame on bin Laden?


So why bin Laden??

I'll concede the fact that he probably has/had a satellite phone computer linkup up there somewhere - is he even in the mountains? How can the Taleban speak to him so quickly? My personal opinion was that any terror group could have carried this out, but as he is the main visible one, he's been scapegoated..
posted by Mossy at 3:55 AM on September 15, 2001


One way to look at it is that Bin Laden may or may not be respoinsible for today's attacks. But people _like_ him are certainly responsible. As he has clearly identified himself as someone who supports terrorist attacks against the United States, I say wasting him is a good place to start, at least.

And if the 31337 kiddies are hacking Afghans, at least they're not hacking amazon and yahoo.
posted by dr_emory at 8:58 AM on September 15, 2001


« Older Palestinian leaders try to repair image includes...   |   Safe Mode for airplanes? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post