Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Zimbabwe Gov't Websites Hit By Pro-WikiLeaks DDoS Attack

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the anonymous-abroad dept.

Censorship 115

An anonymous reader writes "Pro-WikiLeaks hacktivists have struck a blow against the-powers-that-be in Zimbabwe, bringing down three government websites through distributed denial-of-service attacks. The attacks appear to be in support of newspapers who published secret cables in the ongoing WikiLeaks saga, to the annoyance of the country's leadership. Grace Mugabe, wife of Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe, was recently reported to be suing a newspaper for $15 million after it published a WikiLeaks cable that claimed she has benefited from illegal diamond trading. The Zimbabwe government's online portal at www.gta.gov.zw and the official ZANU-PF website continue to be offline, and the Finance Ministry's website now displays a message saying it is under maintenance."

cancel ×

115 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hahaha (1)

koreaman (835838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730228)

I love how Anonymous thinks they are effecting social change by "annoying" Zimbabwe's leaders. These 4channers will get bored, the website will go back up, and life will go on as usual in Zimbabwe.

Re:Hahaha (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730352)

Anything done that "annoys" Zimbabwe's leaders is well worth the effort in my opinion.

Anonymous are pathetic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34730538)

Anything done that "annoys" Zimbabwe's leaders is well worth the effort in my opinion.

What makes you think they're annoyed? Those people probably don't even know about the attacks or if they do, don't give a shit.

I wouldn't. If I were some thieving despot, I would take comfort in my billions of dollars and young girls that do my sexual bidding.

Website down? Pffft! A mosquito is more annoying.

Anonymous is just pathetic in their self importance.

Re:Anonymous are pathetic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34731658)

They found out they can't take down Amazon and can't affect Visa's operations so they decide to take down a web site run in a third world country on a lame server. A site like this could be taken down by a good slashdotting and Anonymous thinks they are super awesome because they can take it down temporarily?

Re:Hahaha (4, Insightful)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730738)

I almost agree with you. However, when you "annoy" someone using illegal/unethical means you kind of lose the high ground. Just because it is a "good" cause doesn't mean one should abandon one's principles. Just look at the Bush administration and torture.

Besides, it is a tactic that is non-lasting. Real change takes real work and time. But I think most people would rather wait until the situation is out of control and then take drastic action rather than do the hard day-to-day work of keeping freedoms alive.

Re:Hahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34731720)

Just because it is a "good" cause doesn't mean one should abandon one's principles.

Perhaps you and them don't share the same principles? Personally, I find nothing wrong with breaking a law or two to try to hurt the powers that be. Besides, it could be possible (however unlikely) that DDoS isn't illegal in the countries the DDoSers live.
A DDoS won't do much besides raise awareness, though.

Re:Hahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34731912)

When the person you're annoying has murdered many people purely to maintain their own power, I think it's pretty easy to maintain the high ground while DDOS'ing their sites. Now when dealing with opponents who haven't done anything as serious as murder or rape, then yeah... you may look petulant or childish.

Re:Hahaha (1)

dasdrewid (653176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734530)

On the other hand, I never would have read about the Grace Mugabe's involvement in illegal diamond trading had Anonymous not DDoSed the various Zimbabwe government sites and gotten in the news (well, /.) for it. The DDoS is not long-lasting, but the information spread because of the uproar is. I'm still unsure how I feel about Anonymous and the DDoS attacks, but I know exactly how I feel about diamond trading (frankly, I'm not a fan of the legal stuff, either...) and now I know better to whom to apply those feelings.

Re:Hahaha (1)

nyatty (1869046) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730884)

I think its a simple type of attack and exposes weak security of Zimbabwe.

Re:Hahaha (1)

BlogTroller (1723086) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734644)

If you can call not withstanding a DDOS attack from an angry mob of 15 year olds weak security, i don't know. It's like saying a bank has weak security because the glass windows in the entrance break when people are throwing stones at them form the street.

Re:Hahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34731160)

Bitch needs to learn that geeks are not politically correct... and we never claimed to be. If she thinks she can hide behind the racist card, then she needs to go to www..... oh yeah. It's still down.

Bottom line: piss off geeks at your own peril. This is a universal law and applies extra-territorially.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it is.

Re:Hahaha (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730668)

If various sites associated with Zanu-PF, such as the Herald could be hacked to republish the allegedly libelous cable:

2. (C) On November 6, poloff met with Andrew Cranswick, the
CEO of African Consolidated Resources (ACR), the
publicly-traded British firm that had its Chiadzwa diamond
claim in the Marange district of Manicaland seized by the
government parastatal Minerals Marketing Corporation of
Zimbabwe (MMCZ) in 2006 (reftel). According to Cranswick,
there is a small group of high-ranking Zimbabwean officials
who have been extracting tremendous diamond profits from
Chiadzwa. Cranswick said that RBZ Governor Gideon Gono,
Grace Mugabe, wife of President Robert Mugabe, Vice President
Joyce Mujuru, Mines and Mining Development Minister Amos
Midzi, General Constantine Chiwenga and wife Jocelyn, CIO
Director Happyton Bonyongwe, Manicaland Governor Chris
Mushowe, and several white Zimbabweans, including Ken Sharpe,
Greg Scott, and Hendrik O,Neill, are all involved in the
Marange diamond trade.

source [wikileaks.ch] , then some good might come out of this. But DDOS is such a blunt instrument.

I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars (2, Funny)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730250)

Grace Mugabe, wife of Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe, was recently reported to be suing a newspaper for $15 million

Which by the time it gets over with, will be worth a few cents if in the Zimbabwe currency.

Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730252)

That why she sues in Dollars. With every nanosecond they keep the trial hanging, the sum goes up and up in their local currency.

Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730390)

That why she sues in Dollars. With every nanosecond they keep the trial hanging, the sum goes up and up in their local currency.

Not if she was suing in Zimbabwean Dollars [wikipedia.org] , dumbass. And how do you know she *was* suing in (non-local) "Dollars" anyway?

Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34730416)

Why would you call the poster a 'dumbass'? Be minimally fucking civil.

NO U (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34731320)

STFU, dumbass.

Re:NO U (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34731484)

And a double-dumbass to you, too!

Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733880)

How do you know she wasn't? Dumbass.

Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars (1)

donutface (847957) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730316)

The Zimbabwean dollar officially died over a year ago. They all use USD/EUR now

Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars (4, Insightful)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730450)

Not *quite* dead, just comatose. If I recall, they said they'd bring it back if economic growth gets to a certain point, and until then would only use foreign currency to minimize inflation.

Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars (1)

donutface (847957) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730504)

Thanks for the information I thought otherwise. Theyre pretty expensive on Ebay considering their actual value. When I ordered 100 trillion zim dollars for 5 euro, I was convinced it was fake. But no the country is just in so much crap that they can't even watermark their newer currency.

Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730822)

It was a bit of a laugh before they discontinued it. It was illegal to take the currency out of the country.

Probably one of the most pointless laws ever created. Sure you could take the currency out of the country, but by the time you got back it would be worth a few cents on the million of what it was when you left. Even for short periods of time you were better off just giving it away at the airport as it wasn't going to be worth anything the next time you came back.

Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34730898)

I remember the old notes had thin metal strips in - read years back about South Africans changing their rand into zim dollars as the metal in them was worth more than the money. Presumably the law relates to that?
Or perhaps to stop people changing their rand into zim dollars as it'd be cheaper than buying toilet paper?

Re:I'd hope that's not in Zimbabwe dollars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34735426)

Zimbabwe officially adopted the US dollar as a national currency in January, 2009.

El Salvador has done this as well.

$15,0000,000 (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730260)

So, she's suing the paper for an amount that's a little over 0.36% of the countries GDP, which, by the way, works out to about $100 per capita in 2009 dollars, according to the CIA World Fact Book. The Mugabes are a pair of the most despicable people on the planet and why they're allowed to stay in charge, probably out of some fear of removing them looking like "white colonial oppression," is shameful.

clarification (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730274)

Just to clarify, the GDP of Zimbabwe works out to $100/per capita, not the $15,000,000 target of the suit.

Re:clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34730574)

> not the $15,000,000 target of the suit.

Talking of suits, why is that fucking monkey who runs the country so badly dressed all the time? It's like he has blind women make up shirts out of bits of curtain and washing up cloths.

Re:clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34732102)

it's called "National colors"

Mugabe is very nationalistic, self-centered man. He's like Hitler (yes, including the racism), but he's also dumber than a post and growing more senile each year. He's the reason why Zimbabwe went from one of best nations in Africa (top food exporters) to shittiest (food importer)

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730370)

When the USA charges in to change a government people scream and shout and say the the USA is imperliaistic and being mean. When the USA doesn't invade they are looked at with disdain for not helping out those who need it.

You can't have it both ways, however no matter what the USA does it is wrong.

Re:$15,0000,000 (4, Insightful)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730428)

When the USA charges in to change a government people scream and shout and say the the USA is imperliaistic and being mean. When the USA doesn't invade they are looked at with disdain for not helping out those who need it.

You can't have it both ways, however no matter what the USA does it is wrong.

It might help if the US got some sort of international support and helped the countries who most people believed needed helping, instead of unilaterally invading the ones with the most natural resources. Just saying.

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730472)

It might help if the US got some sort of international support and helped the countries who most people believed needed helping, instead of unilaterally invading the ones with the most natural resources. Just saying.

When was the last time the US unilaterally invaded a country? Granada?

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

brusk (135896) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730502)

The US has never invaded mainland Spain, to my knowledge. It did invade Granada in 1983, but the invasion of Panama in 1989 is more recent.

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

brusk (135896) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730512)

I meant Grenada, of course. Hartman's Law strikes again.

Re:$15,0000,000 (2)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730544)

The invasion of Grenada wasn't unilateral; it was requested by, and involved forces from, a number of Caribbean states. Panama, on the other hand, was - and was, to the best of my knowledge, the last occurrence of a unilateral invasion by the US.

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730836)

Technically speaking it's been at last a century. But only because the Australians send troops whenever we go in, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea.

OTOH, if you mean without the approval of the UN or a coalition of governments that answer is rather recent.

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34731104)

OTOH, if you mean without the approval of the UN or a coalition of governments that answer is rather recent.

So ... Panama? Or were you thinking of something else?

Re:$15,0000,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34732130)

I guess the parent had the word "unilaterally" there in excess. Let's ignore it.

2008 was the latest invasion.

If I invade your house with 20 people from my family and 2 unrelated hang-arounders, even if I call it a "coalition", it will still be my family invading your house.

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | more than 3 years ago | (#34732310)

When was the last time the US unilaterally invaded a country? Granada?
The US never invades unilaterally, they call their "allies" and tell them they are invading as well.
What was that famous Dubya quote? "Either yer with us or agin us"?

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

macslas'hole (1173441) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730674)

Just saying.

Do not ever use this phrase, you just completely invalidated what you had just said. By using this phrase, you are saying that you were "just saying" what you had just said and that, therefore, what you had just said was just words, i.e. gibberish.
/rant

Re:$15,0000,000 (3, Informative)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 3 years ago | (#34731150)

Yeah, that's not right. "Just Saying" is modern parlance for "this is so obvious I can't believe I even have to bring it up".

If you're not up to speed with new slang, that's cool, just don't uncorrect us like a bull through the hall.

God speed all the bakers at dawn!

Re:$15,0000,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34734954)

please mod +5, Shins reference ...may they all cut their thumbs and bleed into their buns

Re:$15,0000,000 (2)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730728)

It might help if the US got some sort of international support and helped the countries who most people believed needed helping, instead of unilaterally invading the ones with the most natural resources.

Yeah.....as we all know South Korea, South Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Grenada and Panama are just swimming in natural resources vital to AmeriKKKa's military-industrial complex.

Re:$15,0000,000 (4, Interesting)

rjhubs (929158) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730950)

President Eisenhower's quote for why we aided the French in their war with Vietnam:

"Now let us assume that we lose Indochina. If Indochina goes, several things happen right away. The Malayan peninsula, the last little bit of the end hanging on down there, would be scarcely defensible--and tin and tungsten that we so greatly value from that area would cease coming ... So, when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, we are not voting for a giveaway program. We are voting for the cheapest way that we can to prevent the occurrence of something that would be of the most terrible significance for the United States of America--our security, our power and ability to get certain things we need from the riches of the Indonesian territory, and from southeast Asia." - Quote from the Pentagon Papers

So what were you trying to say again?

Re:$15,0000,000 (4, Informative)

Bob Cat - NYMPHS (313647) | more than 3 years ago | (#34731834)

Your 'quote' is bogus. It is a heavily edited version of a speech Ike gave in public in 1953, when all of Eastern Europe was occupied by the USSR. You edited it to change the meaning entirely. This was a speech about how to keep the free world free, not about metals.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,858151,00.html [time.com]

It was included in one edition of the Pentagon Papers but was never secret.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/ps7.htm [mtholyoke.edu]

Here's the part you deliberately left out:

"But all India would be outflanked. Burma would certainly, in its weakened condition, be no defense. Now, India is surrounded on that side by the Communist empire. Iran on its left is in a weakened condition. I believe I read in the paper this morning that Mossadegh's move toward getting rid of his parliament has been supported and of course he was in that move supported by the Tudeh, which is the Communist Party of Iran. All of that weakening position around there is very ominous for the United States, because finally if we lost all that, how would the free world hold the rich empire of Indonesia? So you see, somewhere along the line, this must be blocked. It must be blocked now. That is what the French are doing."

You're one of those revisionists who claim the Cold War never happened, tight? Or it was all America's fault?
Communism killed around 100 million people in the 20th century. There's books about it, read one.

Re:$15,0000,000 (2)

rjhubs (929158) | more than 3 years ago | (#34732978)

I left it out because the meaning is still the same. Yes, I think everyone is well aware of the effect Domino Theory had on shaping U.S. actions at the time. We need to stop the spread of communism. But if you believe the primary reason for our intervention in the area was for the benefit of the locals, it is a naive belief at best.

The last paragraph in your 2nd link is perfectly clear. Eisenhower's conclusion curiously fails to mention anything about helping the people, but rather mentions the need for the money to be spent to help the U.S. As someone who has traveled through the region, the anti-West sentiment there speaks for itself. You can see plenty of examples of the terrible effects U.S. and Soviet intervention had on the region. The easiest example to pick is the Khmer Rouge. The secret U.S. bombing campaign in Cambodia helped provide the conditions that allowed the brutal and genocidal regime to take power. Once this regime came into power the U.S. and the West did nothing to take stop the genocide. It only came to an end once Cambodia decided to attack Vietnam, which lead the Communist Vietnamese backed by the Soviet Union went in and took them out.

So if we were in the region to help the locals and stop communism, why did we support the French in what was essentially a revolutionary war in Vietnam, yet do nothing to help the Cambodians being slaughtered by a Communist Regime? The evils of the Soviet Union do not absolve the U.S. of their own misdoings.

Re:$15,0000,000 (2)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34731148)

Not sure about the Dominican republic, but Korea, Vietnam, and Grenada weren't "unilateral". Not disagreeing with your point, but if you're going to count non-unilateral engagements, then the list grows far, FAR larger. People seem to forget that the vast majority of US military conflicts have been at the behest or with the cooperation of the UN and/or other nations.

Re:$15,0000,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34731164)

You forgot Poland.

Re:$15,0000,000 (2)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34731938)

It might help if the US got some sort of international support and helped the countries who most people believed needed helping, instead of unilaterally invading the ones with the most natural resources. Just saying.

I'm not sure if it was strictly "unilateral", but your point is still very valid. In fact, here in Africa a typical response to hearing about the US invasions in the middle east was "why aren't they liberating Zimbabwe instead, where the locals actually want to be liberated?".

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734506)

What difference does that make, The effective UN forces are 60% American, 15% British, 10% Canadian, 10% Australian and the rest of the world fills in the rest. No matter what happens it looks like an American operation because almost everybody speaks english.

$150,000,000 US is a portion of the trade (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#34735160)

It might help if the US got some sort of international support and helped the countries who most people believed needed helping, instead of unilaterally invading the ones with the most natural resources. Just saying.

Especially given the existing presence of the Chinese military (allegedly here 1943'28.99"S 3225'33.06"E) .... though I'd be surprised if actual "help" ever arrives - far too much money just in the blood diamonds, and far too many "very" powerful players.

I'd be a little cautious about buying anything Andrew Cranswick sold me without checking carefully first, especially if it's a cattle station (Moola Bulla) - equally I'd consider giving him a some credit when he denies that he pointed at Ernest "Deadly" Blom in the first place - but then Cranswick is possibly in SA at present, so SA bullbars might be higher on his list of concerns than Zim ones.

Just the legacy of Rhodes makes any change in Zim a very tricky proposition, dig a little into the Fullbright connection for more complexities. The whole thing just turns my stomach.

Don't confuse Slashdot with Wikipedia folks - do your own research, I have neither the time, the ability, or the inclination to prove anything, and everything.

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

copponex (13876) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730550)

The United States government has only once invaded a nation to protect their sovereignty since WWII. And according to many sources, the USG allowed Iraq to invade Kuwait in order provide a pretext for war to balance power between Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia after the end of the Iran-Iraq War (which we helped Iraq wage.)

The USG has never invaded a country solely to support a democracy.

Re:$15,0000,000 (2)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730710)

let me guess those same sources say the USA government also planned 911, and has anti gravity engines too.

When the USA participates with other governments they can be told no not to go ahead. Which is what happened to germany for WW II Germany kept pushing and no one did anything until after it was too late. Iraq kept pushing and no one would allow them to be stopped before they invaded kuwait.

If you understand the simple fact that no government can be anything but reactionary to events things make a lot more sense. Most of the information in diplomatic circles are gossip and lies. You can't prevent another 9/11 you can make it harder to do so, but you really can't prevent it. Like security on Windows no matter what you do if you want windows and internet access your going to eventually have a problem.

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730844)

That's not true. The Russians did a hell of a lot, and were it not for their sacrifices it's not likely that the US would've been able to take down Germany.

Re:$15,0000,000 (1, Troll)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34731090)

That's not true. The Russians did a hell of a lot, and were it not for their sacrifices it's not likely that the US would've been able to take down Germany.

Unlikely. No matter what else happened, along about August of 1945, Berlin would've found itself on the short list for one of the three A-bombs available.

It must be noted that while the Soviets killed a lot of German soldiers, very little of what went on on the Eastern Front had much strategic significance - it didn't prevent the Germans from making more tanks, planes, subs, etc. Which means that sans the Soviet Union, we'd still have bombed the crap out of Germany, sunk its submarine fleet, etc.

Which means Germany could have, at best, delayed our invasion of the European mainland.

It must also be noted that without the moderately enormous amount of stuff we sent to the Soviets (specifically, trucks and locomotives), it is unlikely that the Soviet offensives could have been maintained.

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734084)

So those Russians in Berlin at the end of the war were purely imaginary?
It can be taken furthur. As I see it, without Russian involvement the USA would have seen an attack on Germany as entering an unwinnable war and Japan wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbour if they had to worry about the entire Russian military.

Re:$15,0000,000 (1, Troll)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34731194)

Nonsense - if Russia hadn't gotten involved, the war would have lasted a bit longer, and the first nuke would have detonated over Berlin. Either way, the allies would have come out on top. Russia contributed a great deal - and sacrificed and suffered more than any other nation - but the idea that the war could not have been won without them is pure fiction.

Re:$15,0000,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34731768)

That's not true. The Russians did a hell of a lot, and were it not for their sacrifices it's not likely that the US would've been able to take down Germany.

Ah, yes, one must not forget the sacrifices of Russia -- one of the aggressors who started WW2. (See: Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.)

How long could the USSR stood without US Lend-Lease support? (USSR had factories, but Germany was outproducing the colossal USSR. US and British intervention further reduced German shipping and production.)

How long could the USSR stood without the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact?

Why did the USSR wait until after the A-Bomb was dropped to declare war on Japan? (Couldn't have anything to do with grabbing assets in Japanese held territory, could it?)

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733448)

they would have glassed the Ruhr industrial heartland - that is what the Manhattan project was aiming at.

Re:$15,0000,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734482)

The US DIDN'T take down Germany. Note there were other countries involved, oh say, Great Britain & Canada and others.

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

copponex (13876) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730920)

let me guess those same sources say the USA government also planned 911, and has anti gravity engines too.

Red herrings are absolutely delicious.

If you understand the simple fact that no government can be anything but reactionary to events things make a lot more sense.

And if you understand that the United States is motivated by the exact same values as any other empire - hegemony and maintaining geopolitical stability - everything makes sense.

You can't prevent another 9/11 you can make it harder to do so, but you really can't prevent it.

Total bullshit. Al Qaeda targeted the United States because of our military presence in the middle east. If we hadn't been manipulating governments in the middle east since we divided up the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI, 9/11 would have never happened.

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34732876)

So when i say it it becomes a red Herring but when you say it it is the truth?

The USA had very little to do with the dividing up of the Ottoman empire. The British had their colonies there and the USA mostly stayed out of it. We fought some in Egypt and northern Africa, but those battles of WW II were fought by those other than the USA.

    Most people in the Middle east including many Israelis have long forgotten why they continue to fight. My personal suggestion is to nuke Jerusalem and be done with it. One very high yield nuke or maybe three lower yields(hiroshima size). By the time the radiation cleared maybe just maybe we will have forgotten what all the fighting there is about. As a bonus. the millions of religious nutjobs that try to pray to stop said bombs will go out too. As long as an individual does it and no country it could work.

Re:$15,0000,000 (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34731088)

Because US foreign policy is limited to the two modes "Invasion" and "Apathy"?

Other People wil suffer. (4, Interesting)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730266)

This is one of those times where I feel a sense of justification for the anonymous attacks. Mugabe should be run out of office sooner than later.

Problem is, this kind of attack against his governments sites will have one effect: It will bolster his insane claims of overseas meddling causing his countries problems. It is a lie, Mugabe is the no1 cause for the problems Zim is having now, but all anonymous have done is lend credibility to his claims of overseas "agents" (yes he has used that term) causing trouble in Zimbabwe.

This will have the effect that his supporter base will grow, and lend him greater power.

Re:Other People wil suffer. (4, Interesting)

openfrog (897716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730372)

This is one of those times where I feel a sense of justification for the anonymous attacks. Mugabe should be run out of office sooner than later.

Problem is, this kind of attack against his governments sites will have one effect: It will bolster his insane claims of overseas meddling causing his countries problems. It is a lie, Mugabe is the no1 cause for the problems Zim is having now, but all anonymous have done is lend credibility to his claims of overseas "agents" (yes he has used that term) causing trouble in Zimbabwe.

This will have the effect that his supporter base will grow, and lend him greater power.

Spot on. Furthermore, responsible reporting of these events would avoid speculating on the source for these attacks, eg.: "Hit by Pro-WikiLeaks DDoS attacks". It will, or it already is, all too easy for a tyrant to justify repression by perpetrating an attack on his own servers, just like the Reichstag fire, except that you don't need to really burn the parliamant to justify what will follow but just cause yourself a minor annoyance and then cry murder.

This Anonymous thing, if it is done by teenagers, is the stupidest thing ever, and if done by psy-ops, quite clever, as journalists seem to continue to report this unaware.

Re:Other People wil suffer. (1)

Pstrobus (149491) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730706)

This Anonymous thing, if it is done by teenagers, is the stupidest thing ever, and if done by psy-ops, quite clever

My vote is teenagers, the stupid to signal ratio is too high for psy-ops. Besides Mugabe prefers direct action (gukurahundi, 2008 election violence) and seems to appreciate the simplicity of "one person who annoys me, one bullet." False flagging in order to proclaim that "Tha Foreigners" are out to get Zim is too complex and much less useful, he can just point to Tsvangirai's meeting with western folks if he wants to hype "The Enemies are out to get us."

as journalists seem to continue to report this unaware

I assume you mean the assumption that this is 1) by anonymous 2) related to WikiLeaks, correct?

Re:Other People wil suffer. (1)

openfrog (897716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730886)

My vote is teenagers, the stupid to signal ratio is too high for psy-ops.

as journalists seem to continue to report this unaware

I assume you mean the assumption that this is 1) by anonymous 2) related to WikiLeaks, correct?

You write "my vote". Indeed, this is my point: we can only speculate on the source of these attacks. And if teenagers, manipulated or not? Do you assume, or vote, for a public opinion shaping event on the scale of WikiLeaks and the sudden irruption of Anonymous on the story not to be the concern of intelligence agencies with a view on policy shaping?

Whoever was at the beginning of Anonymous, there is absolutely no way to verify the source of a given attack. As a consequence, responsible journalists should stop speculating on their sources. By "unaware", I mean unaware that whenever they write that a DDoS attack is done by Anonymous, they actually don't know what they are talking about.

Re:Other People wil suffer. (2)

jasonditz (597385) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730732)

I've had people make the same argument to me against the WikiLeaks leaks in general, except with the Obama regime instead of the Mugabe one.

That embarrassing a corrupt government is going to lead to a crackdown is no real excuse not to embarrass them, as they're going to find an excuse to crack down either way.

Re:Other People wil suffer. (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 3 years ago | (#34731080)

You are right - They will find an excuse to crack down.

The question is: Why give them one? Why aid them by handing them an excuse?

And as for embarrassment, I think it is hardly embarrassing to have your government site taken offline, especially one that draws as little traffic as this one - Its alexa ranking is 2,460,718! My blog gets roughly ten times the traffic that they do according to alexa!

If they wanted to disrupt something worthwhile they could have gone after a telecommunications server - surely if Anonymous were as smart as they allude to be they could have figured out the address of one.

Licking wounds (0)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730278)

Zimbabwe's infrastructure is probably minimal and informational in nature. A few Linux boxes running a web server. Certainly makes an easier target than Amazon, Paypal etc. where Anon's boasted how it was going to take it down and managed to cause minimal disruption.

Re:Licking wounds (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730400)

Re:Licking wounds (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734592)

Holy fuck, "ZWD72 million (USD0.12 at June 2008 exchange rates)" they'd have to pay their cell phone bill with billion dollar notes!
Could you sell a package of corn seeds and ask the buy for 150 million dollars and keep a straight face?

Re:Licking wounds (2)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730434)

Well at least one of the sites is hosted on a server in Newark if the queries are to be believed.

Wow! All three Zimbabwe sites? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34730318)

What a bunch of self-important morons - including Assange.

Mugabe's been in power for thirty years, plenty of time to eliminate opponents. Assange just managed to give Mugabe the ammo necessary to take one of the few alternatives to Mugabe down.

Thanks for NOTHING, WikiLeaks.

First p0st (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34730330)

election to the the last night of ~280MB MPEG` off of The hard drive to join in especially

How does one DDoS Zimbabwe websites? (5, Funny)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730360)

Ping flood it from two 56k lines instead of just the one?

Re:How does one DDoS Zimbabwe websites? (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34731262)

Or figure out the phone number of their dial-up line to South Africa and call it repeatedly - until they figure out how to disable call waiting.

Re:How does one DDoS Zimbabwe websites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34732886)

Or send the Zimbabwe gov. black faxes. With, written on them "We heard you don't like whites".

Re:How does one DDoS Zimbabwe websites? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34731582)

No. They run along hitting the string between two cans.

Re:How does one DDoS Zimbabwe websites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34732522)

Kind of funny, but your comment suggests your one of those Americans who thinks everyone in Africa is a jungle-dwelling cannibal.

Re:How does one DDoS Zimbabwe websites? (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733728)

Alternatively, his post suggests that be believes Zimbabwe has infrastructure problems, and you are the one bringing up racism.

The phrase "get your mind out of the gutter" comes to mind...

Until somebody gets hurt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34730442)

Its all going to be fun and games until one of these DDoS attacks or one of the Wikileaks publications leads to murder/genocide. Then all these kiddies will have blood on their hands. Good game.

Re:Until somebody gets hurt (2)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730528)

Those kiddies won't have anything on their hands. It will be those, that will create that genocide, who will. Noone blames jews for the Holocaust, no matter how much Nazi propaganda talked about how they brought it on themselves.

The one who looks for an excuse to do something will always find one. So if we pull our heads out of our asses and take a look at what happens around us (not just in the countries, that have rich natural resources) maybe we can prevent another genocidal leader ruining millions of lives.

Re:Until somebody gets hurt (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730908)

Even homicidal dictators need some small reason to do what they do. Mugabe has just been handed one on a plate by Wikileaks and its kiddy followers. Anyone with half a brain and an understanding of human nature can see that. Unfortunately an understanding of human nature isn't something apsergers types like Assange and his equally socially inept cheerleaders have.

Re:Until somebody gets hurt (1)

Plunky (929104) | more than 3 years ago | (#34731172)

Even homicidal dictators need some small reason to do what they do.

They are homicidal dictators, they don't need reasons!

Mugabe has just been handed one on a plate by Wikileaks and its kiddy followers.

Well now, an excuse, is not the same as a reason.. Incitement to riot is not a reason to riot. You can point and say 'They made me do it' but you know what? As an adult, you are going to be responsible for your own actions..

Re:Until somebody gets hurt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34732774)

Good God you're a fucking idiot.

Re:Until somebody gets hurt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734646)

As an Aspergian myself I resent the insinuation that Narcissistic asshole like Assange has Asperger's. The simple fact is that being socially inept doesn't exclude you from knowing your socially inept and consciously considering your actions and their logical repercussions will be, with help from others if necessary. Few Narcissistic drama whores make good chess player, so it shouldn't be any surprise that Assange and the sophomoric 4chaner's making up the vast majority of Anonymous starts tripping over their foreskins.

Ehh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34730730)

I guess it just goes to show that you can never underestimate the ability of youth to go and do exceedingly questionable things in their pretentious mindset of moral superiority.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Zimbabwe or similar countries need government change and for that matter change period. Or that some of the things that these so-called WikiLeaks document (if they're credible, which is a question few seem to be asking and none have answered) are bad things. What seems to be the true thrust of arguments in favour of these DDOS attacks, leaks, and other acts of espionage is that the people on the receiving end, essentially deserved.

The ends don't justify the means - and there are much better means to effect social change than a group carpet-bombing websites, or for that matter wikileaks airing out a bunch of dirty laundry.

Its worth remembering that this is the same WikiLeaks that gave out GPS coordinates for US troops. They're not just being anti-American. They're on the other side. I'm not even American, and I say that.

Wikileaks has helped Mugabe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34730876)

How WikiLeaks Just Set Back Democracy in Zimbabwe [theatlantic.com] Are their anonymous fans trying to compensate for that?

Why bother? Zim is a failed state. (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730946)

Zim doesn't even qualify as a Banana Republic.

Re:Why bother? Zim is a failed state. (1)

koreaman (835838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34732826)

Sure it is [wikipedia.org] . :)

Do we know for sure... (3, Insightful)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 3 years ago | (#34730984)

...that these attacks "in support of Wikileaks" are what they are represented to be? Or is it possible that at least some of them could be false flag attacks designed to make the case later that breaching government secrecy is somehow tantamount to terrorism? Just asking... I really have no idea, but neither do I expect things always to be what they appear.

Re:Do we know for sure... (1)

poity (465672) | more than 3 years ago | (#34732096)

Who's to say wikileaks itself isn't a false flag operation by that thought process? When you go down that road of paranoia, there's no end to what COULD BE.

Re:Do we know for sure... (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34732208)

I think all these questions about the attacks in support of Wikileaks being a false flag operation are just a false flag operation to make it look more plausible that they are a false flag operation.

It's conspiracies and useful idiots all the way down.

Or people doing it for the lulz.

Ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34731366)

slashdot censors posts

Re:Ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733344)

Not really, it's one of the reasons I still bother to come here. The editors don't delete posts, except for that one time they got sued.

Unless you consider downmodding to be censorship... if so, you're taking the moderation system way too seriously.

What the politicians are too polite to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34731624)

The politicians (and diplomats) are (for a lot of good reasons) taught to act and talk in a very couched, non-confrontational way. The truth is that Robert Mugabe was at one time a good thing for Zimbabwe, and Africa in general. That time passed about 25 years ago. Robert Mugabe has become an ass-hat, a pariah, a blight on Africa, and a disaster for Zimbabwe. When he chased all of those nasty evil, its-not-really-their-land-anyway-even-though-they-paid-for-it-and-have-owned-it-and-worked-it-for-two-or-three-generations white farmers, and gave the land to soldiers he wanted to reward with a nice nest-egg for shooting opponents. Suddenly instead of being a bread basket to Africa, Zimbabwe was in dire need of food and had food shortages and people starving. Good job buckwheat! But its not just white farmers old Bob Mugabe has been oppressing. I (personally) know someone who left Zimbabwe because Mugabe's troops killed his parents, grandparents, and a few of his brothers and sisters. He fled because they did not vote for Mugabe. I've seen pictures of Mugabe's house, paid for with blood diamonds. Its unfortunate, but Zimbabwe, like Haiti, suffers poverty not because its people are not willing to try, not because there are no resources (although in Haiti there aren't many), and not because outside forces haven't bent over backwards to improve the situation of the people there, the biggest obstacle to progress is government leadership, corruption, and a group of people (perhaps all of the people) who see gain for their group or clan as paramount, and never once considers 'the common good?' They never consider that if people are empowered (even people not in their clan), then the wealth those people create will help them too. But they never go for the big picture. They always go for door number one: "Me and my clan living well and to hell with everyone else." Mugabe is a perfect example of this. Haiti? Haiti has a coup every 18 months or so. Every year and a half for the last hundred years or so, Haiti has had a fresh new government. When one group gets tired of the other groups corruption, they burn tires in the street, and shoot the other sides leaders, take power and then oppress the other side, Gangs are in charge. No long term planning occurs in Haiti. External aid usually amounts to about 1 billion US dollars per year. Not just the year of the earthquake, or the year before, or the year before that, but every year for decades. Haiti doesn't get any better, and not because people outside of Haiti haven't tried to fix Haiti. Not for decades. Haitis problems come from within. It likely sounds mean, but I am becoming a proponent of urging both governments and NGO's to quit spoonfeeding Haiti until Haiti has what everyone calls free and fair elections, *AND* the government remains stable for at least 5 years. That's the stick. NGO aid and foreign aid come after that: thats the carrot. Sometimes countries need tough love too. Another example of stupidity in Haiti: A ship, containing hundreds of pallets of medicine able to stop the cholera epidemic: in the port at Port-Au-Prince. Unable to unload supplies for more than 6 weeks because a politician was unwilling to give approval to unload the cargo. Another example: Medicine sitting in the sun on the runway of the airport (slowly going bad due to lack of refrigeration). 20 yards away, a hospital needing that medicine to help the sick and dying. Again, a bureaucrat unwilling to sign a piece of paper because he only wanted the medicine to go to his supporters, and couldn't figure out who was in the hospital: (better to let them all die than help the other side). Haiti and Zimbabwe are fucked up places not because of circumstance, or fortune or luck or disaster. These countries problems are with the people, and greed and stupidity. Fix that first, FIRST!!!, and then you can do the rest.

Re:What the politicians are too polite to say (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#34735298)

These countries problems are with the people, and greed and stupidity. Fix that first, FIRST!!!, and then you can do the rest.

You are right. Thanks for putting up the truth.

While sincerely not wanting to muddy the waters.... The corruption is fueled by profit, and those (outside of Zim) who profit the most will continue to manipulate the situation in their favour. Fixing, by any means, the situation in Zim is not in their (sic) favour.

IMO one of the areas that foreigners (governments and their citizens) can, and should, help is in the identification and prosecution of those outside of Zim that benefit from, and contribute to the ongoing problems.

I'd also add a lack of an equitably education system to the list of things Zim needs to sort itself out. Sadly the contributions in that area by Rhodes (and Fullbright) don't seem to have helped.

Mozambique is just as bad - just not as popular in the press. To anyone planning on visiting Zim - no amount of pula or rand will save you arse from the ZANU-PF if you are caught with *any* camouflage clothing. For 'some reason' both Moz and Zim are *very* paranoid about the idea of foreign mercenaries arriving to try and stage a coupe.

Terrorism (1)

jrbirdman (1281118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34731882)

Plain and simple.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?