Anonymous Supporters Tricked Into Installing Trojan 184
dsinc sends this quote from a Symantec report:
"In 2011, dozens of Anonymous members who participated in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks in support of Anonymous hacktivism causes were arrested. In these DDoS attacks, supporters using the Low Orbit Ion Cannon denial-of-service (DoS) tool would voluntarily include their computer in a botnet for attacks in support of Anonymous. In the wake Anonymous member arrests this week, it is worth highlighting how Anonymous supporters have been deceived into installing Zeus botnet clients purportedly for the purpose of DoS attacks. The Zeus client does perform DoS attacks, but it doesn’t stop there. It also steals the users' online banking credentials, webmail credentials, and cookies. The deception of Anonymous supporters began on January 20, 2012, the day of the FBI Megaupload raid."
Not hackers? Shocking! (Score:2, Insightful)
Further proof the bulk of "anonymous" are just brainless sheep on image boards.
Re:Not hackers? Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)
Further proof the bulk of "anonymous" are just brainless sheep on image boards.
Sheep? Yeah, most of them are. Much like anything popular, what you're mainly going to attract are sheep.
Brainless? Some, sure. I saw one that had decorated her Guy Fawkes mask "to make it prettier". Um. Yeah, brainless. But I think you'll find some smart ones too, if you look hard.
Image boards? Nothing in TFA points to that. It's easy to think of Anonymous as a bunch of 4channers, but that's not really true anymore, if it ever was. IRC and Twitter are probably more popular than image boards for those who go beyond just sniffing at Anon. Probably Facebook too for the more careless ones. But there's very little Anonymous on image boards these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you expect *not* to find malware...? (Score:2)
actually yea, i saw this video on youtube with a masked guy asking to download hoic and or loic for an attack on facebook (what they would want to achieve with that is a bit unclear ... blacking out facebook for a few hours has like zero consequence or political impact imo) sounded a bit like testosterone headbutting contest ... so i download it and scanned them both, avira gave nothing but housecall found malware in one of them ... so that's what i posted in a reply to the video ...
i dont know who would be so smart as to just download something from anyone with a mask thats available anywhere and install it without scanning but apparently some people did ... stupid?
It's a piece of software intended to be used for DDOSing (even if participating is voluntary)... Did you really expect it not to register as malware if it's "legit"? I fail to see the point of scanning it in the first place.
Anyways... "Anonymous" is a banner like "Feminism". Anyone can label themselves as such if they feel like it. So different kinds of people apply the term to themselves that the term itself is essentially meaningless. Interesting thing isn't what Anon stands for but rather the fact that
Re: (Score:2)
FFS.... learn to use sentences.
Virus checking _new_ files with virus checkers doesn't work very well.... up to you to figure out why.
i still believe in it, tho i see way more potential in a cooperation between a faceless publishing house and wikileaks than a bit of ddos attacks by some disgruntled whatevers, assange was taken down because he brought to attention what would otherwise have stayed mostly in the usual channels, he had a public face and could be attacked ... masked resistance publishing leake
Jokes on them! (Score:5, Funny)
Anonymous members don't have bank accounts.
They don't need them (Score:5, Funny)
The pocket money they get from mummy and daddy doesn't make it worth while.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Jokes on them! (Score:4, Interesting)
Or all the funds are transferred to a single account owned by some authority, who can then trace back who was participating in the ddos attacks by subpoenaing from banks the identities of all the accounts that had automated transfers made into the master account. Think fighting fire with fire.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure any evidence gathered that way will be inadmissible.
That said, that would tell them who to focus their energy on. Once they did that, I'm sure piles of legitimate evidence would start appearing.
Re: (Score:2)
What are "now" skills?
Re:Jokes on them! (Score:4, Funny)
what could go wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
Installing software that allows a third party to orchestrate DDoS? Sounds legit...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The circumstances surrounding this make it very hard to be sympathetic to people who get hit by it. "My banking information was compromised, and all I wanted to do was help take down the website of some entity that displeased me today" isn't really a rallying cry many people can get behind.
Re:what could go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
"My banking information was compromised, and all I wanted to do was help take down the website of some entity that displeased me today" isn't really a rallying cry many people can get behind.
Well, no. It's too long.
"Tits, for great justice!" is shorter.
Who said that a battle cry has to reflect all your causes? I don't see US marines crying "to protect the dollar being usurped as de facto currency for international oil trade" either. Instead they go with a slogan they don't know what means, don't know how to pronounce, but is short and goes well with beer.
Re: (Score:3)
... er, every marine I know damn well knows what it means, even if they can't say it right.
Re: (Score:2)
"Tits, for great justice!" is shorter.
Annonymous will never be able to use that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead they go with a slogan they don't know what means, don't know how to pronounce, but is short and goes well with beer.
Apparently you can be bigoted (as long as it is against soldiers), and still get a +5 here on slashdot. Well done.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but, my machine was compromised, end of story. Once it has been established the machine was compromised the owner of the machine is now guilty of nothing done by that machine.
The fact that the machine is compromised breaks the 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'. All the evidence on that machine is now questionable. In fact the only evidence on the machine that is valid is the existence of a Trojan, the perfect 'ALIBI'.
So in this case, some amateur online activists will have been saved by their own
Re:what could go wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Smart idea on several levels. Make a tiny VM, and if your spidey-sense tingles, shred the disk file.
Re: (Score:1)
Even better...
1) Install DDOS trojan on an old pc you have laying around;
2) Packet away at $enemy_of_the_day!
3) When/if the police come knocking at your door, play dumb (i.e. plausible deniability) and show them your malware-ridden old pc (for bonus points, install Antivirus2013 and friends, just to make the malware infection seem obvious)
4) ???
5) PROFIT! (or, at least, not jail)
I'm actually surprised Anonymous hasn't come up with something like this before...
Re: (Score:2)
for bonus points, install Antivirus2013 and friends, just to make the malware infection seem obvious
And it has the added effect of delaying any action by the cops for at least a week while they try to boot it up.
Re:what could go wrong? (Score:4, Informative)
If you know enough to use a sandbox, you shouldn't be using LOIC to DoS a webserver anyway, since it's not effective. Something that works at the HTTP level (like Slowloris [wikipedia.org] for Apache servers) will be way more effective.
Re: (Score:2)
It's gratifying to see one of my dark predictions realized even if it does mean that a lot of morons got ripped off.
Re: (Score:2)
Initially I supported Anonymous. It seemed like they were actually a group that stood up to organizations that abused power.
However, it seems that some of the "members " of Anonymous have taken to abusing the power they themselves accumulated. Perhaps there are still people in that group who would rather crack FBI and intelligence company sites to upset their operations, but those divergent members who are using the Anonymous abilities and name to commit crimes against supporters are making Anonymous as a w
Re: (Score:3)
Anonymous started out by raiding forums for epileptics and posting images designed to trigger seizures.
Being for or against Anonymous is meaningless. They're not a group with a purpose and a manifesto, they'll do whatever the random group of people who call themselves Anonymous that day will want to do.
Re:what could go wrong? (Score:4, Funny)
Because one can easily recognize their own kind?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, whoever rose up to wield any significant amount of power learned also to steer their potential opposition to harmless or self-destructing activities. It is not like a game of chess, it is like checkers, a banal move to do, the "panem et circenses" way, or the "emmanuel goldstein"way.
You feel like you have to deal with tattoos, drugs, loud music, DDoS, fight with police, and be a loner to be against the system? Doesn't all that make you easier to be sorted out from the "ordinary sheep" instead?
Its lambing season (Score:2)
Time for the sheep to be sheared....
Re: (Score:2)
Time for the sheep to be sheared....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hngIzzQ0XZc [youtube.com]
So let me see if I understand this: (Score:1)
We are supposed to feel bad for these guys that were attempting to engage in premeditated malicious behavior, and in doing so they ended up getting robbed by someone else that took advantage of their stupidity?
It sounds like your basic con: Person #1 offers something Person #2 wants at a great deal. Person #2 is really greedy, and tries to trick Person #1 into a deal where Person #1 is at a disadvantage. Person #1 agrees to this as Person #1 was never at a disadvantage and Person #2 would have lost regardle
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
FBI? (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary and TFA seem to hint that this is an FBI sting, but the details don't seem to support that.
Maybe more will come out about it later.
Re: (Score:2)
DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, the only purpose of a DDoS is to prevent somebody from being able to speak. I'm a huge advocate of freedom of speech, I love it when everybody is able to say whatever they want to say, and that includes people I don't like. I hate the MPAA/RIAA as much as anybody, but I want them to be able to say what they say. Websites are a form of speech, regardless of whether their purpose is to sell goods or to issue propaganda.
When you shut down those websites (like anonymous tried to do with the vatican) you are no better than the mafia; just trying to shut somebody up for the sole purpose that you don't like them. To these people, freedom of speech is good but only when they agree with the person who is speaking. That is just fucked up and goes against everything our democracy stands for; so I say fuck anonymous. If they want to spread the truth about the bad things that an organization does (like they did with scientology,) that is perfectly acceptable, but shutting them up is not.
To me this is poetic justice. No, I don't like to see people getting their identity stolen, but participating in inhibiting somebody else's ability to speak is just bad form, and I hope they get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit (Score:4, Interesting)
Picket Brick'N'Mortar store or DDOS OnlineStore.com... what speech is being halted? Either can still speak out (Press releases, backup location/sites, etc). The price is business lost, customers frustrated that shop elsewhere, bad press, etc
You CAN stifle speech via DDOS, but to say it's the ONLY reason for doing it? that's a bit short sighted to say the least. Ignoring the forest for the tree you've focused on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The price is business lost, customers frustrated that shop elsewhere, bad press, etc
So in other words, it is up to you to tell their customers where they are and are not allowed to shop? If not by kicking their customers out of their store, then by forcing them out of business simply because you disagree with them? That sounds a bit arrogant, and is certainly not in the spirit of freedom.
When godaddy supported SOPA, they didn't deserve to be DDoS'ed (and as far as I am aware, they weren't) however their cus
Re: (Score:1)
A DoS rarely suppresses speech. It usually draws attention to points of view given by both the DoS-er and the DoS-ee. The mainstream news reports covering DoS don't commonly ignore one side of the argument. Besides, anyone who gets DoS-ed can just get another website for $20/month a spout more nonsense. Your post sounds nice, but I think you miss the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, anyone who gets DoS-ed can just get another website for $20/month a spout more nonsense. Your post sounds nice, but I think you miss the point.
Oh so if we disagree with you you'll be happy to pay $20?
I think you're sprouting nonsense, please PayPal me $20 to Dan@danscomp.net
Thank You,
Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, DDoS *could* be used to silence someone who's only way of speaking out is through a narrow band on the Internet. And it probably is, too. But not in these cases.
Re: (Score:2)
If that isn't the purpose, then what is the purpose? You just don't like them and you want them gone? You just don't want them to be able to do business? Just because you don't want them to exist, means they don't have the right to?
How is any of this in the spirit of democracy and freedom of expression?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, DDoS *could* be used to silence someone who's only way of speaking out is through a narrow band on the Internet. And it probably is, too. But not in these cases.
So it's OK to shut down somebody's website if they can open up another one? This is terrible reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought the purpose of a DDoS was to make them stop and scratch.
Re: (Score:1)
I think it's pretty ridiculous to think DDoSing RIAA/MPAA is going to do anything anyway. Does anyone actually visit those sites?
Re: (Score:2)
I would have thought DDoSing the mail server would cause more operational problems for most organisations. Although looking up a simple MX record is probably beyond the technical ability of your average anon.
Re: (Score:2)
I totally agree with you. Anonymous is a censorship movement, free-speech means allowing people you disagree with to speak.
It's also worth noting that Anonymous once vowed to destroy Facebook for privacy violations, yet Anonymous routinely leaks data private data of innocent people.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't a DDos also a form of speech? It might just be screaming nonsense at someone, making it impossible for anyone to hear what that person is saying, but it's still speech.
HOW? (Score:2, Informative)
It simply shows... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How exactly does this show 'Anonymous' has no moral high ground to stand on? There is no they. It isn't a group with a specific set of ideas or 'morals'. There is no leader. Participants come and go as they please and even contradict each other. Some may participate in attacks against the government while others participate in attacks in favour of the government. Some may reject attacks alltogether.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between Hackers and Crackers...
In Anonymous there's probably 4-5 hackers, and 20+ crackers, 1000+ script kiddies + 10.000 fanboys.
Re:It simply shows... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I understood TFA correctly, the trojan was not distributed by Anonymous but by others who basically hijacked the distro, redirecting the wannabee DDOSers to another executable which contained the trojan.
Re: (Score:2)
That Anonymous does not have any moral ground to stand on.
They have no moral high ground? Sounds like an opinion.
In any case, considering their past actions, what makes this case special? If they have no moral high ground now, shouldn't someone have realized in the past that they didn't have it then? I think they should've realized such a thing sooner.
And you get what you deserve. (Score:2, Informative)
I have about as much sympathy for the people victimized by this scheme as I do for people that sign up for 419 scams where the come-on letter is clearly asking the recipient to engage in money laundering, theft, and blatant violations of tax and banking laws.
If you install malicious software on your computer on purpose, I have ZERO sympathy for you when it turns out the software includes you in the list of victims.
Anonymous...4...5..guys at best.. (Score:2)
I think Anonymous basically are 4 - 5 really skilled people that really knows what they're doing, the rest is just a bunch of posers and script-kiddies that does whatever Anonymous want them to do - in fact, the worst posers probably does exactly what anonymous doesn't want them to do as well, since there are no real connection between them, no real mail, no real addresses - just random causes that some follow or not.
If there's an outrage in the world, it's very easy to make a distorted video, put on a guy
Re: (Score:2)
When I look about the hacks that happened so far, I can't really agree with this. I'm not going to say that they are not skilled, but what happened so far was more a matter of rather simple, standard injection attacks, similar to the attempts I find thousands a day in our IDS/IPS logs. Attacks that would have been found in a standard security audit, I might add.
In a nutshell, what Anonymous hacked so far were companies whose disregard for security borders on stupidity. And I say stupidity because I don't kn
Not really new (Score:1)
I was having a look at one annonymous IRC channel more than a month ago, and I saw a few guys asking for a link to the "LOIC without the trojan".
I assume this is the same one they are talking about in this article; so this not relly new.
Irony.... (Score:1)
I find it quite ironic that Symantec, a company whose "antivirus" utilities allow the most virii into machines (both O/S and the antivirus software itself) and exhibits the most virus-like behavior when you try and remove it, is publishing the report.
I've had quite a few associates with virii over the last 12 months and each and every one of them had either Symantec Internet Security, McAfee or MS Security that were supposedly defending their systems. Every case of infection required a complete O/S reinsta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noes (Score:2)
I installed a virus on my computer! I didn't realize it would do something bad!
Nothing interesting here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hhmm... (Score:2)
FUD... (Score:2)
...works.
It really does amaze me that humans ever managed to crawl out of the evolutionary cesspool. We spend far too much effort attempting to protect the stupid. We should let the universe do much more pruning of the dead wood. Here's your sign...
Ha! Ha! (Score:2)
I love it (Score:2)
The self-proclaimed "elite hackers" don't even know enough about system security to protect THEMSELVES. I absolutely LOVE it when the arrogant get taken down a notch through their own ineptitude.
Mind you, these are the same people that are surprised when police and three-letter agencies come a-knockin' at their doors with charges in South America and elsewhere. I find it so amusing that "security experts" don't understand how easy it is for three-letter agencies with access to ISP resources to track an
Re: (Score:2)
It would not surprise me if they are doing the same to make Anonymous look like evil crackers and criminals.
Anonymous does a pretty good job of that themselves, if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
But how do you knooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow?
(All tin foil based headwear products 50% off, this Sunday only!)
Re: (Score:1)
Yup. There is very little that "Anonymous" does that I could get behind, and even then their means (DDoS? It is to laugh) is silly as it does little damage.
If you attack the front facing site (eg www.paypal.com) you do nothing. If you attack the transaction infrastructure, then maybe you offline and inconvenience a few hundred people in one time zone.
With a lot of stuff moving "To the could" DDoS's become an easily solved problem by opening new instances and shutting down the previous ones. If you have bott
Re: (Score:1)
I've never heard of "the could" - is that like a cloud of lost opportunities?
Re:Reminds me of prohibition (Score:5, Funny)
Just the other day, I learnt that the awful smell of natural gas is actually because of something they add to gas and that it wouldn't smell if they didn't have it! Now, whenever my pilot light goes off or I don't quite turn the oven off, my house absolutely stinks! The smell's so bad that last time it happened, when I wanted to smoke, I had to go outside, and get well away from the house to escape the smell!
Why can't the government accept that not everyone uses these so called 'dangerous substances' like they seem to think they should be used?
Re: (Score:2)
How sad is it that I can't just assume that you're joking?
Re:Reminds me of prohibition (Score:4, Informative)
The difference being that adding a scent to natural gas saves lives, but adding poison to industrial alcohol definitely kills people. At least tens of thousands of people died from alcohol the government intentionally poisoned during prohibition. The government's position, of course, was that it was entirely the fault of the bootleggers who distilled that alcohol for human consumption and of the people who drank it. The reality is that it was a terror campaign run by the US government and the fact that those who died were breaking the law doesn't in any way excuse it.
Re: (Score:2)
Did the government release the information that they poisoned the alcohol? If they did, then it WAS the fault of the bootleggers and the drinkers.
Re: (Score:2)
They did release the information that they poisoned it, but they kept the actual nature of the poisoning as secret as they could. Also, the intention was that customers of bootleggers, who didn't necessarily know where the alcohol came from would die and that all the blame would fall on the bootleggers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, screw the government.
Just the other day, I learnt that the awful smell of natural gas is actually because of something they add to gas and that it wouldn't smell if they didn't have it! Now, whenever my pilot light goes off or I don't quite turn the oven off, my house absolutely stinks! The smell's so bad that last time it happened, when I wanted to smoke, I had to go outside, and get well away from the house to escape the smell!
Why can't the government accept that not everyone uses these so called 'dangerous substances' like they seem to think they should be used?
Just open your Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a case of good intervention. It actually helps.
Here is a case of bad intervention.
UPS finds out it will cost them x number of dollars to fly over Europe to pay for 'carbon taxes'. "OH ok" they say. "We will just fly the longer flights over africa, russia, and the Mediterranean as it will be cheaper".
you think Russia would let people fly over it's land for free? haha!
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair they poisoned industrial alcohol that had poison labels on it, and it was no secret either.
Industrial alcohol is used in quite a lot of applications, but to not be taxed for creating a alcoholic liquid the manufactures had to make it toxic. In the middle of prohibition when it was obviously not working, organized crime had hired chemists to de toxify the stuff, they increased the poisons put into the stuff to make it undrinkable again. This time apparently it was to much for the criminal chemists
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, it kind of is a horrible crime when it wasn't poisonous (well, ok, it was, but no more than regular drinking alcohol) but they added poison specifically to kill people. When you make something dangerous specifically for the purpose of killing people, that's pretty horrible.
Re: (Score:2)
No it was poisonous, industrial alcohol has always needed to be poisoned to be legal they just changed the ingredients of this poison to stop people getting around it.
And they did not add poison to kill people, they added it to make it not drinkable. They underestimated organised crime's greed and peoples desire for alcohol.
I assure you, at no point was anyone trying to secretly poison prohibition criminals.
Re:Reminds me of prohibition (Score:5, Informative)
No it was poisonous, industrial alcohol has always needed to be poisoned to be legal they just changed the ingredients of this poison to stop people getting around it.
Your statement is self-contradictory. You claim that the industrial ethanol was somehow magically poisonous despite the fact that, as you admit, it was only poisonous in order to kill people who tried to drink it. Now, some industrial alcohol did need more distillation to be safer for consumption while other industrial alcohol conversely was contaminated with benzene (although in pretty much safe trace amounts) from the extreme distillation process it had been through (to remove all the water). None of it was toxic on anything like the levels it became toxic after the poisoning program. Also, that "always needed to be poisoned" scenario you mention isn't really true. That program started during prohibition.
You said that "they did not add poison to kill people, they added it to make it not drinkable". The reason that it wasn't drinkable after the poison was added was because it killed people. The poison was a terror weapon designed to terrify people away from bootlegged alcohol for fear that they would die. To accomplish this goal, the poisoners were deliberately killing people.
I believe you that at no point were they trying to _secretly_ poison prohibition criminals. It wasn't much of a secret, they were reasonably up front about it. They did keep the information on the constantly changing mixture of poisons they were using secret so as to present a moving target to the chemists working for the bootleggers, however. The obvious consequence of this is that the bootleggers would be selling safe alcohol made from industrial alcohol one day and the next batch would be poisonous. You can claim that the poisoners were just naive innocents. I think that's unlikely, but even if it's true, it still makes them guilty of manslaughter.
Re: (Score:2)
Denatured alcohol is not usually poisoned so that you would just die if you drank it, nowadays. the point of the poisoning is to make it so foul that you _can't_ drink it. it's still possible to drink it and there's 100+ urban legends about how to remove the denaturing agents, ranging from filtering through bread to letting it drip over a sub zero piece of metal(I didn't ever deliberately go even looking for this info, but it's just Finnish street culture, also the notion that the ethanol itself would be so
Re: (Score:2)
What is currently done with rubbing alcohol is pretty stupid and dangerous as far as I'm concerned, but it isn't a patch on the extremes they went to during Prohibition.
Re: (Score:2)
If you let someone know something is poisonous and try to stop them from drinking it, how can you possibly be responsible for them drinking it and dying?
Gee, maybe because you poisoned in the first place specifically so that your warning not to drink it because you'll die would be true. What exactly do you think happens to you if you mine your lawn and put up warning signs saying "minefield, you will die if you walk here" when neighborhood kids get blown to little pieces?
Re: (Score:2)
Misrepresentation.
Lawns are for walking on, in that it is reasonable to expect to be able to walk on grass and get at most yelled at by some guy in a rocking chair on his porch.
Cleaning alcohol is exactly that, for cleaning not drinking. It says so right on the bottle. Have you really thought through what would happen if modern cleaning alcohol was not denatured, and the price left unchanged? I'm not sure that you have.
Re: (Score:2)
Misrepresentation.
Sorry, lost me there. Are you saying that _I_ am misrepresenting something, or was that one word your response to the question I asked at the end of my post?
Lawns are for walking on, in that it is reasonable to expect to be able to walk on grass and get at most yelled at by some guy in a rocking chair on his porch.
I personally feel that lawns are, in fact, for walking on. There are a surprisingly large number of people out there who feel that lawns are for fertilizing, landscaping, and mowing fanatically (not just theirs, but the lawn of anyone nearby, even people who like long grass) and _not_ for walking on or marring in any way. There are also plenty of people
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of evidence alone is proof of a conspiracy!
Re: (Score:2)
After taking the prescribed pills, notonly have the nefarious Italian disinformation transmissions stopped coming from my espresso maker and shampoo bottles, but I also have become importent, which has sadly caused mearly half ofmy girlfriends, wives and mistresses to desert me. Good riddance,they were probably secret Italina agents anyway who left when they could no longer program my toaster-oven to hypnotically deceive me. Better fewer but better, I say.
"mearly half ofmy girlfriends, wives and mistresses"? Yeah, Silvio, I know you got tossed out of office; is that why you're so angry at Italy [guardian.co.uk]?
Re: (Score:2)
Tells you something about the fucked up moral standards that he's being persecuted for sleeping with minors and not his political atrocities...
Re: (Score:2)