back to article Anonymous takes down UK government websites in Assange attack

Anonymous is claiming to have begun shutting down UK government websites in protest of the treatment of Julian Assange. At around 8pm UT, the UK Justice Department website went down under a distributed denial of service attack. About 40 minutes later the Department of Work and Pensions website was also taken offline. Both …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
          1. EvilMole
            FAIL

            Re: Poor

            Yeah, of course, because rape victims don't deserve justice.

            You rape apologists make me sick to the stomach. You think that Assange doing a good thing gives him the right to rape women?

            And that's leaving aside the fact that that Apache incident had been reporting in MSM *prior* to the cable release, and was already under investigation. But hey, that narrative doesn't fit with the deification of St Julian, does it?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Poor

              Eh??!! He didn't rape anyone, and nobody is saying that he did!

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Poor @evilmole

              Where do you get off talking about 'rights' and 'justice' when you assume that someone who hasn't even been charged 'must' be guilty? Presumably Assange knows whether he has raped anyone. You don't.

              Come to that - how do we know what you've been up to? Don't vulnerable sheep deserve justice? You sheep molestation apologists make me sick to the stomach.

              Do you see how it works, now?

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Poor

              deification of Julian... now there's an idea..

              If said "do do" is thrown from UK territory & lands on a person on an Ecuadorian territory balcony, has a UK law been broken & would the defecated need to come out to lodge a complaint?

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Happy

                Re: Re: Poor

                "....If said "do do" is thrown from UK territory & lands on a person on an Ecuadorian territory balcony...." One of the reasons the coppers are outside the embassy so prominently is to stop vigilantes trying something stupid like setting fire to the building to smoke A$$nut out. So I would expect said coppers would arrest you for breach of the peace, though whether they would eventually charge you or not is debatable. It would have been very funny if, during St Jules' proclamations from the balcony, some guy in the crowd had lassoed him and pulled him into the street - would the coppers have stopped the act and let A$$nut scurry back up the steps to safety?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Poor

          @Shoddyhalfwit - The "Collateral Murder" video was edited and editorialised. The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher. This was removed from the video hosted by wikileaks, they also published their own comment about what was/had happened.

          Now, I in no way condone the "laddy" banter that was going on in the cockpit of the helicopter, I also have no idea what it must be like to have a job where you have to kill people and how you deal with that. However to suggest that they were just killing people unprovoked and for fun is way off the mark.

          Strangely, considering this behavior, Assange wanted to publish the names including informers, which were in the Manning emails. This shocked all the people from the proper press, who he was dealing with, he is even reported to have said "they're snitches, fuck them."

          Wikileaks serves no-one, if they don't put the whole leak up, and should only censor to protect innocents or human life.

          1. Anonymous Cowerd
            FAIL

            re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

            Except it wasn't.

            It was a camera with a telephoto lens.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

              AC@12:01: ‘It was a camera with a telephoto lens.’

              It’s so very, very easy to be judgemental of soldiers in the front line when you’re safe behind a computer. It’s not you that has a micro-second to determine if that long cylinder is a telephoto lens or a rocket-launcher—get it wrong and people die. Fail to identify an RPG and allow the terrorist to fire it—people die.

              But not you—you’re thousands of miles away.

              The journalists deliberately associated with armed terrorists (two RPGs were recovered in addition to the cameras) in a combat zone—they presumably knew the risks, and they paid the price. Journalists having been dying in combat zones for a long time, including the famous Robert Capa whose luck finally ran out in Indochina.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                "It’s so very, very easy to be judgemental of soldiers in the front line..."

                Not so much of them. More of the fact that they were placed in an impossible situation, where they could either kill pretty much anything that moved or risk being killed themselves. Just like so many other American service personnel going back to Vietnam and earlier. Mind you, no one (presumably) forced them to join the armed forces.

                Legally, neither they nor the people who gave them their orders had a leg to stand on. The invasion of Iraq was a pure, unprovoked, war of aggression - the ultimate war crime according to the Nuremberg Tribunal.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                  Wrong, Tom: the invasion of Iraq was justified by U.N. resolution 1441 (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/17/iraq2).

                  That stated, some question the legitimacy of the UN itself to pronounce on moral matters, given the number of dictatorships that are its members. So one is left with on one side a coalition of flawed democracies versus a murderous dictatorship. Having removed a murderous dictator, the U.S. did its best to leave something resembling a representative government, which has been opposed by terrorists fighting only to impose a totalitarian theocracy ever since (107 killed and 268 wounded in attacks on July 23 alone this year: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/23/us-iraq-bomb-idUSBRE86M06M20120723).

                  The U.S. certainly made grave mistakes, but that in no way justifies anyone cheering on terrorists.

                  And Tom, while no-one forces today’s Americans to join their all-volunteer army—no-one is forcing the terrorists to become terrorists, are they? But they force others to their will—such as forcing the mentally-handicapped to become suicide bombers (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22945797/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/handicapped-bombers-kill-dozens-iraq/).

                  1. Miek
                    Linux

                    Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                    Just to point out, the effective range of an RPG is roughly 200 metres. If the Apache was half a mile away (citation needed), with a fully trained/seasoned apache pilot: I would have thought that the "threat" would be next to zero.

                    Anyone care to comment?

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                      Miek: ‘Just to point out, the effective range of an RPG is roughly 200 metres. If the Apache was half a mile away (citation needed), with a fully trained/seasoned apache pilot: I would have thought that the "threat" would be next to zero.’

                      The Apache crew’s mission was not to stooge around all day keeping out of effective range but to provide support for the troops on the ground, which entailed them flying about an urban area (i.e. with ample cover from view) with individuals below armed with an RPG. Having identified armed insurgents, they seized the opportunity to engage them, not just to protect themselves from present and future harm but to protect the troops on the ground.

                      From article here (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/army_joe_aviation_071610w/): ‘… the RPG-7 fires grenades with a an effective range of 300 meters against moving targets and a maximum reach of about 1,000 meters. … Engaging from 800 meters away will allow for the 920 meters self-destruct to activate and kill the aircraft.’.

                      There have been a number of helicopters shot down by RPGs, perhaps the most famous being the downing of the Black Hawks in Somalia in 1993, and the most recent being August 2011 (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-12/us/us_afghanistan-helicopter-attack_1_deadliest-month-afghanistan-insurgents?_s=PM:US).

                      This is not a medieval joust or knightly combat where an honourable enemy is granted opportunity to fight on equal terms. Terrorists deliberately bombing schools and markets are devoid of all honour and civilised sensibility (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8399262.stm).

                      1. Miek
                        Linux

                        Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                        Thanks NFI, that made for an interesting read.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                          Miek: ‘Thanks NFI, that made for an interesting read.

                          Wow, Miek—if you’re not being sarcastic (courtesy so rare on internet forums), then you’re very welcome; I’m happy if I provided an informative link.

                          I apologise if the tone of my posts are aggressive—it is frustrating debating those who keep airing points already rebutted, descend into pure fantasy (like AC replied to above and Tom Welsh before him) and whose default viewpoint is that whatever Britain and/or America does or did is bad, but no matter how murderous the other side, they are ipso-facto good by virtue of not being Britain or America.

                          It would be helpful if all of us, irrespective of where on the political spectrum we find ourselves, acknowledge that those who disagree are not necessarily evil; that many or most genuinely desire the ‘greatest good for the greatest numbers’—we just disagree on the methods of achieving that. If we acknowledge that, we just might be able to agree some acceptable compromises and leave this world a little bit better for our having been here.

                          It is both reasonable and honourable to oppose a war, and/or to ask that our armed forces minimise ‘collateral damage’ and ‘friendly fire’ if at all possible. However, going beyond that—as some do—to entirely focussing on our mistakes whilst ignoring or condoning our opponent’s far more destructive and malicious acts is not respectable opposition to a war but partisan supporting the enemy.

                          Everyone makes mistakes—we email/IM the wrong party, bounce the wrong server, distribute the wrong package to the wrong machines, etc. But nobody dies. That our screw-ups don’t kill people doesn’t make us better than soldiers (or doctors or coppers), it just means we play for small stakes.

                          1. Miek
                            Linux

                            Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                            "Wow, Miek—if you’re not being sarcastic (courtesy so rare on internet forums), then you’re very welcome; I’m happy if I provided an informative link." -- No sarcasm at all. Although I do enjoy reading the resulting arguments.

                      2. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                        Transport helo's are not armoured, hence pretty easy to damage.

                        You would need an extraordinary amount of good luck and accuracy to hit an apache in a spot to damage it with an RPG.

                        It's a bit like saying a 50 cal can destroy a truck engine block, and then assume it can stop a MBT front on.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                          AC @13:52&59 ‘…the helo pilot was hovering waiting for orders from higher command as to what to do with the people trying to surrender to him.

                          Source? Where, outside of your diseased imagination, is there any evidence that the armed insurgents were trying to surrender to anyone? Don’t just make stuff up.

                          All they need to do is send a waggon to round them up.

                          Very easy to write when you’re thousands of miles away from any danger. If you had really viewed the footage then how did you miss the radio traffic from ground forces making best speed to the area?

                          Transport helo's are not armoured

                          Wrong. Most, if not all, western military helicopters designed or converted for battlefield use have some degree of armour protection (see, e.g. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/uh-60a.htm / http://www.boeing.co.uk/ViewContent.do?id=52284&aContent=UK%20Chinook).

                          An Apache has greater armour protection, improving survivability further, but it’s nowhere near a flying MBT. It’s apparently designed to withstand hits from up to 12.7mm (0.5") calibre—which is far, so very, very far, short of being able to withstand a hit from an RPG (http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/boeing_ah_64a_apache.htm).

                          A number of Apaches have been lost to ground fire, and it appears that one Apache has been lost to specifically an RPG (http://www.defenceaviation.com/2011/09/attack-helicopters-losing-their-touch.html). Once again, you’re wrong.

                          Aircraft are more vulnerable to ground fire than is commonly realised by those whose sole experience of the military is Hollywood and video games—helicopters are particularly vulnerable (British ground troops during the Falklands War even succeeded in shooting down a Mirage jet fighter with small arms fire; altogether three jets were downed by British small arms. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_2-88_chpt4.htm).

                          1. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                            "AC @13:52&59 ‘…the helo pilot was hovering waiting for orders from higher command as to what to do with the people trying to surrender to him.’

                            Source? Where, outside of your diseased imagination, is there any evidence that the armed insurgents were trying to surrender to anyone? Don’t just make stuff up."

                            http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-apache-insurgents-surrender

                            Is merely one example of US Command being caught issuing dubiously legal orders to it front line troops.

                            Suggest using research rather than uniformed bias, it would have taken less than 2 minutes to find the reports of this incident, it was also aired at the time of the leak on the BBC.

                            1. Anonymous Coward
                              Anonymous Coward

                              Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                              AC @16:53: You are referring to a separate attack from the July 12, 2007 Baghdad incident the wikileaks video is from, that being the event the various previous posts discuss; so my question stands: ‘Where, outside of your diseased imagination, is there any evidence that the armed insurgents were trying to surrender to anyone?’

                            2. Anonymous Coward
                              Anonymous Coward

                              Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                              Further to the US forces’ February 22, 2007 combat (not the later July 12 one): while you, AC@17:53, describe the orders as ‘dubiously legal’—and as a free citizen of the West you are entitled to express your opinion—what are your qualifications to pronounce on the laws and customs of war to cause anybody to place any weight on your opinion?

                              The article that you linked to cited legal expert Sir Adam Roberts but his views are not unequivocal, Sir Adam noting that ‘surrender is not always a simple matter’.

                              While the British ‘Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict’ (referenced by the Guardian) accepts that surrender by ground troops to aircraft ‘has become a more practical proposition’, it also notes that ‘The rule on surrender is in paragraph 12.64’, which states (my emphasis):

                              ‘Although it is forbidden to “kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion”, in air-to-air combat, surrender is usually impracticable and occurs very infrequently. 12.64.1 … the continuation of an attack after an indication by the opponent of a wish to surrender is not inconsistent with the rule in paragraph 12.64, as the enemy pilot who remains in his aircraft cannot be said to have “laid down his arms” or to have “no longer a means of defence”. However, if the surrender is offered in good faith and in circumstances that do not prevent enforcement … it must be respected and accepted.’

                              At 12:33 the Apache reports the enemy insurgents as ‘wanting to surrender’. At 12:35, the crew report that the enemy have ‘got back into the truck and are heading north’. They have withdrawn their surrender and, regardless of the practical difficulties admitted by the British manual, have made themselves legitimate targets again. The legal advice given at 12:36 might be incorrect (a test case is required to clarify and set precedent), but it is also redundant. The successful attack at 13:03 is entirely within the laws of war.

                              A problem with newspaper reports is that journalists are commonly biased and often have a specific narrative to promote. They ask ‘leading questions’ then report it as if a journalist’s words tentatively agreed to were an interviewee’s own and unprompted (e.g. discussion between Lords Gifford and Saville http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101103103930/http:/report.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/transcripts/Archive/Ts287.htm , p.65). They misrepresent, quote out of context, etc. (http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=1752). One very important question of which Sir Adam’s views would be apposite is: were the insurgents in full compliance with Article 4 (para. 2 conditions) of the Third Geneva Convention, 1949? If they were not, they had no entitlement to protection under international law to begin with.

                          2. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                            "A number of Apaches have been lost to ground fire, and it appears that one Apache has been lost to specifically an RPG (http://www.defenceaviation.com/2011/09/attack-helicopters-losing-their-touch.html). Once again, you’re wrong."

                            The original design specification of the apache required it to be able to take 23mm anti aircraft fire, as found on warsaw pact mobile AA systems (remember this is a deep cold war warrior aircraft), and surprisingly a helo pilot doesn't stay around when being shot at, regardless of what the DoD or MoD have told him about his armour protection.

                            The article you site is highly biased to pushing fixed wing CAS, by talking down the effectivenes of attack helo's.

                            If you are really lucky, you can down an apache (or anyother turbine based aircraft) with pigons by putting them through the turbine intakes, but nobody would suggest that is an effective or repeatable tactic, and the laws of probability apply to anything, if you lob enough rounds against anything you will eventualy get one that goes somewhere damaging, and as what we are discussing is 1st round kill probability, rather academic.

                            The average transport helo "armour" is litle more than spalling protection and confidence sop for the crews. They're primary protection is to not get hit in the first place, hence some of the really "creative" flying done by RAF Chinook crews trying to get troops out under fire, leading to DFC's etc.

                            Fast jets have no armour, and very little inside that reacts well to forgien objects (hence why airfields are hot on FOD), so yes, laws of probability say if you shoot at enough aircraft over enough years with enough small arms ammuntion you're eventually going to get something. If you want to look at an armoured aircraft, look at the specs on an A-10 (fixed wind) or Hind (helo)

                            I would observe that the military frequently overstated the effectiveness of SA ground fire against combat aircraft to infantry, primarily as the truth is bad for morale, most SA ground fire is little more effective than distracting to the inbound pilot, if the pilot has planned his mission properly. If anybody is interested in some colourful first hand accounts of this, I would recomend "RAF Harrier Ground Attack, Falklands" by Jerry Pook.

                            By the way, I have never played shooter video games, but I can explain how to calculate structural airspeed.

                            1. Anonymous Coward
                              Anonymous Coward

                              Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                              AC @17:46: ‘and surprisingly a helo pilot doesn't stay around when being shot at, regardless of what the DoD or MoD have told him about his armour protection.

                              Well, no s**t, Sherlock. Have you any other pearls of the totally bleedin’ obvious to share?

                              The original design specification of the apache required it to be able to take 23mm anti aircraft fire

                              And various parts are supposed to be able to withstand that, with its entirety claimed to be proof against ballistic impact from up to .50" calibre rounds. All of which falls very short of withstanding an RPG hit.

                              The average transport helo "armour" is litle more than spalling protection …

                              You wrote ‘Transport helo's are not armoured’—not ‘poorly’, ‘lightly’ or ‘inadequately’ armoured, but ‘not’ armoured; and as already noted, you are wrong, utterly wrong.

                              Miek, should you read this and if my opinion is of any weight to you, a good insight into being a military helicopter pilot is gained from Robert Mason’s ‘Chickenhawk’, his memoir of his year in Vietnam: highly readable and not gung-ho. For you, AC, from the book: ‘I opened the left cockpit door. Everything inside looked the same except for the armored pilots’ seats. … The armor added 350 pounds to the aircraft … The ceramic and steel laminations, built up to about half an inch thick, fit around and under the seat … A sliding armored panel on the side of the seat next to the door pulled forward, protection for the torso but not for the head.’ (p.47)

                              Was it adequate? No. It was a messy compromise like so many other aspects of human existence.

                              The old saying goes, ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,’ but your posts, AC, are false in everything to begin with. Although it will not stop you smugly pontificating on what soldiers may or may not do while you remain safe thousands of miles away from any combat zone, will it?

                    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      Boffin

                      Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                      ".... the effective range of an RPG is roughly 200 metres..." Wrong. The effective range at which a typical, partially-trained RPG-7 operative will be able to realistically hit a vital point on a moving armoured vehicle is generally taken as being 100m. A properly-trained and experienced operative can hit such targets at 500+m but the 200m figure is used to prevent too many RPG rounds being wasted on long-range shots. If they are using the Russian self-detonating warheads then the maximum range is about 900m, though some of the Chinese versions can be ballistically fired for area effect to ranges of several kilometers. In the 1993 US action in Mogadishu portrayed in "Blackhawk Down", the Somali miltants used RPGs against low-flying helicopters to good effect, and the Afghans had (rare) successes against the MiL-24 Hinds in the '80s with exactly the same weapon. At half-a-mile an RPG round still presents a significant threat to even an armoured chopper like an Apache.

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                    "Wrong, Tom: the invasion of Iraq was justified by U.N. resolution 1441 (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/17/iraq2)".

                    I think you are the one who is wrong. Looking no further than Wikipedia, I find the following. (In case you are still in doubt, "this" is a clear and positive statement by the USA and UK governments that Resolution 1441 in itself could NOT be a trigger for war).

                    ======================================================================================

                    While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

                    “ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[2] ”

                    The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

                    “ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3]

                  3. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                    Moreover, no UN resolution (or anything else) can justify the launching of an unprovoked war of aggression. The great powers may be able to swing a Security Council resolution, but that doesn't alter the illegality of the war in the slightest.

                    Literally scores of UN resolutions have been ignored by Israel, and the USA and UK didn't turn a hair.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                Completely missing the context that the helo pilot was hovering waiting for orders from higher command as to what to do with the people trying to surrender to him.

                Higher command said fire, claiming they had council that it is not possible to surrender to a aircraft (despite all the iraqi conscripts that have previoulsy surrendered to aircraft during the 1st gulf war)

                All they need to do is send a waggon to round them up. I would note my personal interpretation of the footage was that the pilot did not sound at all happy with his orders from higher command.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Poor

            " The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher".

            More likely a sunshade or a camera or any of a host of things that might look slightly like an RPG from half a mile away in a rapidly moving helicopter.

            So the brave lads responded to the "threat" of this alleged "RPG" by killing a whole lot of helpless, harmless civilians - and then coming back for a second helping of helpless, harmless children. Kids...mmmmmmmmmmmmm.

            In any case, they had no right even to be in the country. Illegal armed invaders deserve whatever they get. And any harm they do, or cause, while there is entirely their fault.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Poor

              Tom: ‘More likely a sunshade or a camera or any of a host of things … So the brave lads responded to the "threat" of this alleged "RPG" … ’

              Fact, Tom: two RPGs were recovered as well as a Kalishnikov assault rifle. So members of that group were armed with actual not ‘alleged’ RPGs. Furthermore, this event did not occur in isolation but was part of a much larger operation and other elements were engaged by terrorists. This all in the midst of a wider insurgency: the same day in other parts of Iraq saw a suicide-bombing of a wedding, gunmen firing on a police checkpoint—also, U.S. helicopters killed five of six men burying a roadside bomb, thus saving uncountable lives (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=1).

              Tom: ‘by killing a whole lot of helpless, harmless civilians - and then coming back for a second helping of helpless, harmless children. Kids...mmmmmmmmmmmmm.’

              Two children, Tom, and the soldiers were unaware of them—all they saw was a black van with military-age adults and assumed they were insurgents retrieving weapons and their comrades. When ground forces arrived and discovered the unfortunately wounded children, they arranged their evacuation to hospital, saving their lives.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Poor

                "Fact, Tom: two RPGs were recovered as well as a Kalishnikov assault rifle".

                Source?

                In any case, I have no doubt that US forces were well equipped with "throw-down" weapons for exactly such eventualities.

                1. A knight who until recently said "Ni!"

                  Re: Poor

                  "In any case, I have no doubt that US forces were well equipped with "throw-down" weapons for exactly such eventualities."

                  Source?

                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    Boffin

                    Re: Re: Poor

                    "In any case, I have no doubt that US forces were well equipped with "throw-down" weapons for exactly such eventualities."

                    Source?

                    ***********************************

                    The "throw-down" stories go back to Vietnam, when the US administration decided to judge effectiveness of the US Forces in combat by counting dead and the number of weapons recovered. The idea was flawed seeing as the Viet Cong in particular made a practice of removing their dead (usually their relatives or fellow villagers) and their weapons from contacts. Indeed, seeing as the grunts were often patrols having to fight their way out of ambushes they often could not gain control of the combat area and return to do any counting until several hours after the combat if at all, giving the VC plenty of time to retrieve their dead and any weapons left on the ground. What made it worse was the added US policy of giving leave to units judged to be "more effective", which meant the grunts, mostly conscripts not sold on the idea of the whole Vietnam venture, now had a good reason to play the system. There are several alleged cases of US patrols buying weapons on the blackmarket and staging ambushes where they fired off lots of ammo and dumped the "throw-down" weapons to make it look like they had just had a successful contact. Administrators eager for good news would then report back to the political hierarchy that the unit involved was "effective". Anti-war types in the US seized on the stories to insist that US troops were shooting unarmed Vietnamese and then dumping "throw-down" weapons to make it look like they had made "righteous kills".

                    Of course, the only problem with applying that type of angle here is the unedited chopper vid footage that A$$nut had clearly shows weapons, so unless "Tom Welsh" wants to contend the US has developed a tech that automatically inserts "throw-down" weapons into live footage then he's just talking out of his rectum.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Poor

                  Tom, do appraise me when wikipedia earned a reputation as a reliable source. I cite a British Attorney General (Lord Goldsmith, QC since 1987, a Deputy High Court Judge since 1994, Chairman of the Bar of England & Wales in 1995, etc.) and you cite a source that can be and is edited by absolutely anyone (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18833763). Pathetic, Tom, just pathetic.

                  Regardless, as I already noted, some dispute the legitimacy of the U.N., given the number of dictatorships of which it is composed; and as I wrote, the matter is then reduced to a coalition of flawed but functioning democracies versus a murderous dictator. The removal of a murderous dictator is a good in and of itself.

                  As for U.N. resolutions regarding Israel: Tom, I appreciate that distraction is a favoured debating tactic of liberal shills for terrorists and totalitarian thugs, but we are discussing events in Iraq not Israel—do try and stick to the point.

                  The primary source for the recovery of the weapons is http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf. Even Assange has agreed that the group had RPGs: ‘Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG …’ (http://www.thenation.com/blog/167224/when-wikileaks-came-fame-two-years-ago-collateral-murder).

                  Tom: ‘In any case, I have no doubt that US forces were well equipped with "throw-down" weapons for exactly such eventualities.

                  You are now writing arrant nonsense, Tom—however much you loathe the forces of democracy, please try arguing with facts instead of simply making crap up.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Poor

                    One further reply, Tom, to your preposterous, ‘I have no doubt that US forces were well equipped with "throw-down" weapons for exactly such eventualities.’.

                    You write drivel like this because you have never served in the military and you plainly have never even read a book on how the military functions. The military is nothing like it is depicted by Hollywood or video games. For a start, it is a disciplined environment subject to strict regulations, and breach of those regulations can warrant extremely serious punishment—and no running off to a tribunal squealing discrimination for soldiers. Privately owned weapons in the U.S. military are subject to military and federal law (see http://svc.mt.gov/gsd/onestop/upload/Appendix%20F_AR190-11%20Physical%20Security%20of%20AAE.pdf): they must be registered and safely stored, and ‘war trophies’ must be authorised. Certainly, a front-line environment can see regulations interpreted increasingly flexibly, depending on the scale of combat, and perhaps a U.S. soldier here and there is slipping away with a pistol. However, there is no way in Heaven or Earth that soldiers are walking around with spare RPGs—it is little short of retarded to suggest that, Tom.

                    1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Re: Poor

          "....He released video footage of US troops committing war crimes...." No, he released highly edited video with the hope of extracting money from news media companies with trumped up charges of "war crimes". In reality the events had already been thoroughly investigated and no criminal charges placed. Since the "Collateral Murder" vid was released the World's rights activists and other handwringer lawfare types have been able to examine both it and the unedited footage in detail, and no-one is pushing the war crimes angle because it is patently NOT a war crime. I would suggest you try looking at the footage, reading up on the background, and then try making your own opinion, rather than just being spoonfed one.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Poor

        "As for Anonymous - it's quite difficult to see what taking down webpages is actually going to achieve"

        Same as standing around in some corner waving placards and chanting slogans, only this is the 21st century.

        1. EvilMole
          FAIL

          Re: Poor

          Except when you stood around and chanted, you didn't inconvenience a whole load of entirely innocent people just wanting information from a website.

          DDoS is not free speech.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Poor

        'As for Anonymous - it's quite difficult to see what taking down webpages is actually going to achieve. Idiots. '

        What it achieves? It gives away their positions, gets them arrested.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Poor

      If they went for sensitive government information in that way, how soon until MI5 and MI6 get involved? MI5 would track down the people in the UK using the tool and arrest them under anti-terror laws, MI6 would work with foreign governments and also accuse them of terror related activities to get them over here.

      I have no interest in the tool but did they actually manage to change it now so it hides your IP address totally and utterly? If they don't then anyone in the UK that used that tool for DDOS purposes against .gov.uk may quite soon find their criminal record will alter slightly, then cue #AnonOps demanding more DDOS in defence of their innocent brothers who are being persecuted.....

      It's a never ending circle! I'm going Anon in this post too because almost everyone else is and I'm feeling left out.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Poor

        It's idiotic to think that a DDoS is going to change anything. If you want to get clarity in government than you push for transparency, and don't let go. You don't buy the terrorists excuse, and you go back to basics: you have rights, and any government ability to infringe on their is a privilege you as voter give for very precise purposes - a privilege, the use of which MUST be accounted for (possibly with some delay because the bad guys should not profit).

        But a DDoS is just a temporary nuisance. It's the electronic equivalent of a smelly fart, and roughly at the same intellectual level.

        Oh, and by the way, the moment someone calls me or someone else *Brother* I know I am about to hear serious BS. It's the moment I tune out. I believe in the Groucho Marx approach to clubs: I don't want to belong to any that want me..

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Poor

          "If you want to get clarity in government than you push for transparency, and don't let go"

          Thank you so much for the advice. Could you now please tell me from what specific actions that you have personally done does your knowledge stem from?

          Or are you just another spectator criticising the players? Lousy they might be (or not), but at least they're out there in the field.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Poor

            I actually have built networks, infrastructures and decision models that work. I am actively collaborating on efforts that promote people's privacy (that is, people that follow their obligations) by preventing abuse of anti-terror laws. I do so by forcing an audit trail, yet do not get in the way of properly executed law enforcement.

            I also work on various efforts to improve transparency with law enforcement, and rather than rant from the sidelines I actually talk to people that are in the frontline to see if I can make the job easier for those who do their job, and more difficult who are all too prone to corruption. It's jolly comfortable to rant at the police when you know they can't do anything back, but you should realise that the majority of those people you throw bricks at mainly want to do their job, which is basic law enforcement. You should try a couple of weeks in their shoes - unlike you, they are at the sharp end. They can't run away and call someone else. They are also human - treat them like a normal human being and you will receive a likewise treatment.

            This is part of what annoys me so much. The world is FAR from black and white, yet idiots like you either don't have the brains for the subtlety or are wilfully ignoring it. Either way causes unnecessary collateral damage, which you naturally ignore. I am on the side of the law, like anyone who chooses to live in a particular society, but I retain my independence. If there was even a shred of dignity in Assange's actions, even the tiniest indication what he was doing wasn't 100% focused on self aggrandisement, even the smallest concern he was set up instead of him breaking the law and refusing even the investigation to establish if there were mitigating facts I would have some reservations about the process. But I have none. Assange has made his bed (pardon the pun), now he is absolutely desperate to avoid having to lie in it, in the process making a mockery of the law and the reasons for the asylum process.

            Law breakers (whoever they are, whiney Ozzies running away from the consequences of their actions, MPs abusing expense systems, bent coppers or war mongers) should face the consequences, after due process.

            And you? Done anything but whine a bit on a website?

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Poor

            "Thank you so much for the advice. Could you now please tell me from what specific actions that you have personally done does your knowledge stem from?

            "Or are you just another spectator criticising the players? Lousy they might be (or not), but at least they're out there in the field."

            What has he done? Probably nothing. Which means he hasn't screwed around thinking hacking websites, or thinking he's a hero because he goes on self-indulgent protests in a country where the police and courts will guarantee your rights. So he hasn't achieved anything, but he also hasn't become a nauseating poseur. So he's one up on you.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Poor

        "MI5 would track down the people in the UK using the tool and arrest them"

        Yes. The headline looms: "Playgroups and schools are stormed as the security services round up senior members of the Anon Collective."

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anonymous WTF

    Anonymous attacked a lot more than UK websites today. Our company was also put under a DOS attack.

    I can understand that Anonymous have some grudges to bear but they need to realise that behind some of their attacks there are normal people that can quickly come under the gun and pay the price for Anons antics.

    I can understand Anon and their idealogies but they need to "think" a little bit more about the how, who and why that they are attacking.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: *thinking* ???

      I can understand Anon and their idealogies but they need to "think" a little bit more about the how, who and why that they are attacking.

      Well, I no longer understand Anon, but that's because I think your assumption that they actually *think* appears to be overly generous. As far as I can tell, they are no more intelligent that the scripts they use. "Oooooh - a government, me think is bad" "Oooooh, facts about Assange, me think they are lies". They are forced to remain behind their computers because taking a walk would risk knuckle damage through dragging.

      This is thinking at amoeba level. Stimulus; response, stimulus; response. No interpretation or critical thinking in between. And facts? Hahaha. Get real - these get twisted in a way that make even government spin doctors hesitate. Heck, it makes Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists look rational and sympathetic. Well, OK, maybe not Jehovah's Witnesses, although it's a close call.

      I'm stopping now, it's *seriously* starting to annoy me that we have such a massive volume of deluded idiots. May they all encounter Darwin before long.

  2. taxman
    Mushroom

    Anonymous

    meet Prolexia. Prolexia, Anonymouse.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't expect the script kiddies and their masters to give any kind of fuck about how their defence of an alleged rapist, affects anyone else.

    Anon = defenders of (alleged) rapists.

    I knew they'd eventually show their true colours...

    Nice tag you got there guys and gals.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Interesting slippery slope (apologies for the unintended pun). What's next? DDoS justice websites because they have the gal to arrest a pedofile?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Or have a Paediatrician mob-lynched, perhaps?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019