Ohio Government Websites Hacked With Pro-Islamic State Messages (bloomberg.com) 207
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."
Show of Weakness (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Some of them might actually prefer that, you know. I'd much rather they ended up with 72 nuns with shotguns.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (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 terroris
Re: (Score:3)
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 G
Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" (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.
Re: Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" (Score:3)
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"
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
yeah it's right up there with the bible and talmud.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2, 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?
Re:Islamic terrorists don't say "heartland" (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, of course: to IS militants, Islam equals jihad. To GOP militants, it's the exact reverse.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org]. People on the coasts tend to call it "flyover country," but of course the residents themselves don't seem to like that term.
The real problem (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you assumed this was an example of an "opponent" seems telling, though.
Re: (Score:1)
Defacing a web site does not count as "infiltration".
Re: (Score:2)
I never read about Henry Ford being arrested in 1941.
Aloha Snackbar!!! (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Gimme a sec, I wanted to wash my hair anyway. Towels count, right?
Ohio Is pro fundamentalist Islamist now? (Score:1)
No News just Crap (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.
Why Ohio? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Derka derka (Score:2)
mohammed jihad. Which is all these idiots ever say anyway. F islam, mohammed's bones are dust.
Re: (Score:2)
You're contradicting yourself. We can deal with stone-age terrorists.
They've lost already (Score:3)
These guys are toast. They didn't licence the music properly.
Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (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
Re: (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 [wikipedia.org]
The Montana Freemen were an anti-government Christian Patriot movement group based outside [wikipedia.org]
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, Breivik for one had one of the highest bodycounts for a terrorist attack in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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... [dagen.no]
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 befo
Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (Score:5, Informative)
I assume you never heard of the IRA.
Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (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-... [newsweek.com]
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.
Re: (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 [theguardian.com], 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'
Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (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
Re: (Score:2)
(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 [bbc.co.uk], 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
Re: (Score:2)
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.) [theatlantic.com] 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."
Y
explain it away [Re:Biased data set] (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
What you claimed:
What the study claimed:
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 c
Re: (Score:3)
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" ?
Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (Score:2)
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.
Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 defe
Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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'.
Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (Score:2)
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 fu
Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (Score:2)
Also: http://www.latimes.com/nation/... [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 stoppin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 [fair.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Fucked up the source for the quote. Fixed. [telegraph.co.uk]
Sorry about that.
Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (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.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe the police just really hated Ariana Grande fans?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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
Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (Score:4, Informative)
""Known to security services" at best means they have been arrested for actual crimes before."
No it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
"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/... [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 s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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)
Re:Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
people choose to be Muslim and can change at any time
Not always, no. [wikipedia.org]
Re: Most Slashdot readers are hypocrites (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.
One is born muslim (Score:3)
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 par
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! (Score:4, 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).
Re: (Score:3)
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 the
Re: (Score:2)
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 yo
Re: (Score:2)
:-D
Re: (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.
Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! (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. .. 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the one being intellectually dishonest here.
Yes you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden doesn't have a terrorism problem, but unless they solve the economic and integration issues they might in a decade or three.
Re: THE CALIPHATE HAS COME! (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Fighting a "war" is not necessarily the best way of winning it.