backtop


Print 101 comment(s) - last by MisterModder.. on Jun 25 at 3:21 PM

Attacks mistakenly targetted legitimate BitTorrent tracker

Jim Louderback, CEO of internet TV network Revision3, is considering legal action against anti-piracy firm MediaDefender after an internal investigation revealed it to be the source of a Memorial Day weekend Denial of Service attack against Revision3’s computer network.

“Interestingly enough, whoever was sending these SYN packets wasn’t shy. Far from it: it’s as if they wanted us to know who they were,” wrote Louderback in a blog post dated Thursday. “Instead of some shadowy underground criminal syndicate, the packets [came from] our home state of California. In fact, we traced the [attack] to a public company called ARTISTDirect. Once we were able to get their internet provider on the line, they verified that yes, indeed, that internet address belonged to [MediaDefender].”

Revision3 runs a private BitTorrent tracker that it uses to distribute shows produced in-house. MediaDefender may have been trying to exploit a security hole in its server, said Louderback, and when Revision3 administrators locked MediaDefender out, the company might have automatically launched a DoS attack in retaliation.

After speaking with MediaDefender Vice President of Operations Ben Grodsky, Louderback says that MediaDefender admitted to “abusing” Revision3’s servers, by “injecting a broad array of torrents” into the company’s BitTorrent tracker.

“We’d noticed some unauthorized use of our tracking server, and took steps to de-authorize torrents pointing to non-Revision3 files. That, as it turns out, was exactly the wrong thing to do. MediaDefender’s servers, at that point, initiated a flood of SYN packets attempting to reconnect to the files stored on our server. And that torrential cascade of ‘Hi’s brought down our network,” said Louderback.

MediaDefender did not respond to requests for comment from DailyTech.

Grodsky said that his company didn’t do “anything specific” to target Revision3, and the attack – which Grodsky characterized as an attempt by MediaDefender bots to contact Revision 3 “every three hours” – was unintentional. “We didn’t do anything to increase traffic,” he claimed.

“Our own logs show upwards of 8,000 packets a second,” said Louderback.

“Revision3 suffered measurable harm to its business due to that flood of packets, as the attacks on our legitimate and legal Torrent Tracking server spilled over into our entire internet infrastructure. Thus we were unable to serve videos and advertising through much of the weekend, and into Tuesday – and even our internal email servers were brought down.”

Revision3’s legal department is examining its options, and the FBI is “looking into the matter.”

MediaDefender gained a reputation in 2007 after eagle-eyed observers spotted inconsistencies in a dragnet site the company set up, located at Miivi.com. This discovery attracted the attention (and wrath) of a group calling itself the “MediaDefender-Defenders,” who leaked over a gigabyte of the company’s e-mail and fileserver contents onto the internet. The resulting black eye sent MediaDefender’s business into a dive, with reports indicating that damage control cost ARTISTDirect more than $800,000 as of last March forcing the company to seek restructuring with management firm Salem Partners LLC.

“They saw us as a “distributor” – even though we were using BitTorrent for legitimate reasons. Once we shut them out, their vast network of servers were automatically programmed to implement a scorched earth policy, and shut us down in turn,” wrote Louderback.

“All I want, for Revision3, is to get our weekend back – both the countless hours spent by our heroic tech staff attempting to unravel the mess, and the revenue, traffic and entertainment that we didn’t deliver.”

UPDATE 6/4/2008: MediaDefender claims Revision3's tracker saw over 296,000 illegitimate uploads by outsiders, and says it wasn't aware of the tracker's legitimate use. You can read MediaDefender's response here.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Perfect
By Eugenics on 5/31/2008 10:33:06 AM , Rating: 5
This sounds like an excellent excuse to execute anyone who works for MediaDefender.

Top 3 evils in the world atm:
1. Pedophiles
2. RIAA + MPAA and anyone who sides with them
3. Al Queada




RE: Perfect
By djkrypplephite on 5/31/2008 11:54:18 AM , Rating: 2
You know I think you're actually spot on.


RE: Perfect
By Noya on 5/31/2008 1:39:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Al Queada


First, learn how to spell it.
Second, get real.

The US propping up shieks/dictators/etc. in the Arab world is the whole reason they hate the West. Tit-for-tat.


RE: Perfect
By Reclaimer77 on 5/31/2008 7:28:32 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The US propping up shieks/dictators/etc. in the Arab world is the whole reason they hate the West. Tit-for-tat.


Silly me. I thought they hated us because of the Koran, which was written in the 8'th century. Were we " propping up " dictators back then ?

Your attempting to use rational reasoning for why radical Islamic extremist behave the way they do. People who advocate murder/suicide, I suggest to you, are not rational or using reasoning.

You can only blame the West for so much. Hey, I hate my dad for leaving mom 26 years ago, but I haven't strapped a bomb to my chest yet.


RE: Perfect
By Kaleid on 6/1/2008 4:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
They certainly are motivated because of religious fundamentalism but it is too simplistic to say that it is the reason.

The reasons can be found by reading the fatwas. For instance, The Israel / Palestine issue, which is stupidly overly supportive for Israel and barely recognizes the Palestinians (this is widely shared view in the middle-east + the fact that US selectively supports oppressive non-democratic muslim regimes)
Second, something that even Wolfowitz pointed out: US military presence in the "holy land" (IMO "holy" is BS) Saudiarabia.

If you have time and interest, begin by reading here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.j...


RE: Perfect
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2008 7:03:36 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
They certainly are motivated because of religious fundamentalism but it is too simplistic to say that it is the reason.


I'm sure they think they have many valid reasons. The problem I have with this line of thinking is the people who support it have a double standard. For example, legal action taken by the military leads to civilian casualties and it causes an uproar. Suicide bomber blows himself and 20 other people up, and its no big deal. There must be a REASON for it. There must be a way to blame this on somebody else, usually the U.S. Well I'm sick of it.

quote:
If you have time and interest, begin by reading here:


Honestly, I don't. Any attempt to legitimize or explain away radical terrorist behavior is a thinly veiled attempt to garner sympathy to their causes. I don't have the stomach for it anymore. You don't think I'm aware of the excuses they use and others cook up to explain it ?

I know its complicated. I know its not always black and white. But at some point we just have to realize we're not going to change things overnight, but we have to take a stand and draw the line somewhere. This behavior of theirs cannot be excused or explained away any longer.


RE: Perfect
By Strunf on 6/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Perfect
By gmw1082 on 6/2/2008 8:32:45 AM , Rating: 4
"It was radical terrorists that made the US "

Yes because people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson loved to strap bombs to their chest and blow up innocent civilians.


RE: Perfect
By Strunf on 6/2/2008 1:51:26 PM , Rating: 1
Osama doesnt do it either... about blowing up civilians it depends were the natives civilians or were they insurgents by default?...


RE: Perfect
By rhuarch on 6/2/2008 10:42:02 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
It was radical terrorists that made the US


You have got to be kidding me! The men who fought in the revolutionary war were nothing of the sort. We made an official declaration of war and only attacked military targets. The closest we came was with the American irregulars, but they still only attacked the British military, and the British army had their own irregulars as well. Come to think of it the only reason they were considered irregulars was because they didn't conform to the stupid practice of lining up on a field and taking pot shots at each other. The fact that you would compare the American revolutionaries to Islamist fundamentalists like Al qaeda just demonstrates your fundamental lack of understanding both of past events and current.


RE: Perfect
By Strunf on 6/2/2008 1:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
The only difference between the two is the tactic used to achieve their goal.


RE: Perfect
By theapparition on 6/2/2008 2:43:51 PM , Rating: 4
Well duh.....

Isn't that the point.
Let's see.

Tactic 1:
A militarized war where targets are only other military targets. Civilian casulties are discouraged and merely collateral.

vs.

Tactic 2:
A coward blowing himself up in a coffee shop, not letting innocent civilians know that they are in danger.

Glad you see the difference.

OK, no more feeding the trolls....


RE: Perfect
By Strunf on 6/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Perfect
By gmw1082 on 6/3/2008 8:38:08 AM , Rating: 2
"I'm not sure that if some foreign nation had taken over yours you would still see the civilians that took possession of your land really innocent."

So when the US attacked Iraq and occupied the country it became acceptable for terrorists to kill the Iraqi civilians?


RE: Perfect
By theapparition on 6/3/2008 10:19:12 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
TextInnocent civilians ? In the eyes of who? maybe yours but not in the eye of many... besides I'm not sure that if some foreign nation had taken over yours you would still see the civilians that took possession of your land really innocent.

Gee, your right.
Guess children should now be classified as "enemy combatants". People with no knowledge, or power to enforce change, are being killed. That's the difference.

Your shear ignorance is outstanding that you can't see the difference. As another point.......the whole "civilized" world tends to agree on the definition of "terrorism". But I guess your sooooo much smarter than the other 8billion people here.


RE: Perfect
By Strunf on 6/3/2008 5:08:02 PM , Rating: 3
Since you couldn't hold much ground with "innocent civilians" you come with children... give me a break will ya, it's not like the US hadn't killed innocent civilians, children included on this war and others.And I don't see you calling the US terrorists, even if a lot of people do...

Cause you asked to those 8 billions their opinion... most people walking on this earth don't care for whatever happens outside their country, they see it in the news with shock and awe and 10 seconds later they forget everything about it. Your civilized world is the one that also brought a war based on WMD that are yet to be found, that even supported Saddam and others dictators through history, that still has the death sentence, practices torture... the list is long.


RE: Perfect
By theapparition on 6/4/2008 9:34:52 AM , Rating: 3
Yes the US has killed children in the Iraq confrontation. Why is that?

Because the "noble" freedom fighters (as you would put it) set up base camps in schools, or close to civilian areas. When the US miliatary is fired upon, strikes are ordered and the area is taken out, but, ooops, it's a school. Who's fault is it then?

They use civilians and children as shields, using terror as a means of control. "You will do what I want or we'll kill your family and rape your daughters". Thier tactics are nothing more than "gang" mentality. They are murderers in every sense of the word.

The US could wipe them out in a heartbeat, but that would cause an un-imaginable amount of collateral damage. Instead, since the US actually cares about the Iraqi people, they try to police the area, rather than be soldiers.

There's nothing more the US wants than to leave, and thiers nothing more the insurgents want than the US to stay. Armed conflict gives them power, and without that they are nothing, since only through fear do they leverage any sort of control.

I'm Done.


RE: Perfect
By MrPoletski on 6/4/2008 8:44:14 AM , Rating: 1
"Gee, your right.
Guess children should now be classified as "enemy combatants". People with no knowledge, or power to enforce change, are being killed. That's the difference."

Where are you talking about? In suicide bomb attacks in the west?

Or are you talking about the many times more occurances of deaths of children and people with now power to enforce change that is occuring in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine?

Don't think it isn't happening because it sure as hell is. The difference is when they suicide bomb, they lose one of their fighters too. When we (and/or Israel) go in guns blazing we don't.

OH yeah, they are not targeted, just collateral. We must have pretty shit aim then guys.


RE: Perfect
By theapparition on 6/4/2008 9:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
OH yeah, they are not targeted, just collateral. We must have pretty shit aim then guys.

Hard to aim good when someone who is shooting at you is hiding behind children and civilians. Get it? No, of course you won't. Your mind is already made up that the US is the root of all evil in the world. Too bad you don't see the big picture.

quote:
Don't think it isn't happening because it sure as hell is. The difference is when they suicide bomb, they lose one of their fighters too. When we (and/or Israel) go in guns blazing we don't.

Congratulations, I'm nominating you for "Most ridiculous reply to a pointless internet thread" award.

You can't see the point can you?
When they suicide bomb, rarely is the target military. More than not, it is civilian (their own neighbors) who they want to kill. They do this not to try to win a war, but to intimidate and terrorize the population into inaction. True military action focuses only on the combatants, not the people around them.

Let me break it down very, very, very simple for you since from your previous posts seem incapable of grasping simple points.
Terrorists intentionally try to kill unarmed people.
Military forces try to only kill armed people who are trying to kill them.

See how simple it can be?


RE: Perfect
By Reclaimer77 on 6/2/2008 12:31:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It was radical terrorists that made the US


Wow kid ! Just...wow !


RE: Perfect
By Nik00117 on 6/2/2008 1:53:27 PM , Rating: 1
It could be considered a true statement if you look at it correctly. In the revolution war we didn't exactly fight like we were expected too. I mean we didn't stand in straight lines and fire at each other like proper men did. Terroists are essentianlly doing the same, they are not fighting military to military but useing civilians, and various tactics which we consider bad, However Truth of the matter is that what we were in 1776.

Judge history by the morals of that day, not today


RE: Perfect
By Reclaimer77 on 6/2/2008 2:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It could be considered a true statement if you look at it correctly.


No, nothing about that statement could be considered true.

We were fighting for our INDEPENDENCE ! We left England, understand? If our forefathers were terrorists, they would have stayed in England and waged war. Thats what a terrorists IS by definition. They cause TERROR.

quote:
I mean we didn't stand in straight lines and fire at each other like proper men did. Terroists are essentianlly doing the same, they are not fighting military to military but useing civilians, and various tactics which we consider bad


Guerilla tactics don't MAKE someone a terrorist. And it didn't back then. Again you fail to understand why someone is called a terrorist.

quote:
Judge history by the morals of that day, not today


I think in your attempt to wow us with your logic and intelligence your missing the fact that the poster basically claimed our forefathers were " no better " then the common day terrorist.

I can't even believe we're having a serious debate about this to be honest.


RE: Perfect
By MrPoletski on 6/3/2008 4:59:21 AM , Rating: 1
"We were fighting for our INDEPENDENCE ! We left England, understand? If our forefathers were terrorists, they would have stayed in England and waged war. Thats what a terrorists IS by definition. They cause TERROR."

However wrong they might be, that is what these terrorists also believe they are fighting for. The difference is that they did not leave, they were always there. WE came over to them.

Yeah they all need to be caught and stopped, but we need to change our actions in the middle east too. Like not starting wars like the Iraq war, or the upcoming war with Iran.


RE: Perfect
By elgueroloco on 6/4/2008 11:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
Independence is hardly what Al Qaeda is fighting for. They are fighting to establish a massive muslim empire that stretches from the Phillipines to Turkey to Spain, encompassing all the lands that were once ruled by Muslims. Then they want to use that empire to take over the world. Read The Looming Tower, and you will have a much better understanding of terrorist motivations.

The terrorists claim to be noble warriors fighting for their cause/beliefs, but when it all comes down to it, their motives are actually all selfish. Bitch-Laden wants political power, greatness, glory, etc; his bomber minion scum want 71 virgins; and they don't care who they have to murder, rape, or torture to get it.

Here's the book on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Qaeda-Road-Vin...


RE: Perfect
By MrPoletski on 6/3/2008 5:03:26 AM , Rating: 2
I understand what you say, but it doesn't make suicide bombing and (what I call non-idiotic) infantry formations.


RE: Perfect
By MrPoletski on 6/3/2008 5:29:43 AM , Rating: 2
.... the same thing. Missed off the end of that post...


RE: Perfect
By Kaleid on 6/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Perfect
By Adonlude on 6/2/2008 1:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
I feel we are beyond root causes and reasons for hating America at this point. It is just a counter culture now. Hating America is just the "in" thing to do in many countries. Anti-Americanism is ingrained now, its taught, its practically written in the school books.

I go to europe and run into many America bashers and they just sound like a broken record of inaccurate propoganda, its almost laughable some of the things people tell me as fact about my country. Then in America I meet young Europeans who have just moved here and they see how mistaken the propoganda is.

Most recently I met a Swiss fellow who just moved here to marry a friend of a friend and he was telling me that he and all his friends in Switzerland thought we had no culture here in America. He admitted that he and his Swiss buddies were way off on America. We were having a great time in a Kareoke dive bar.


RE: Perfect
By Regs on 6/2/2008 9:06:01 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Silly me. I thought they hated us because of the Koran, which was written in the 8'th century. Were we " propping up " dictators back then ?


I think it's a little juvenile or naive to think they really hate us because of the Koran. They only use their own twisted view or interpretation of the Koran against us to justify their "holy war". They hate us because we bomb their nations, kill their innocent (collateral damage), and influence their way of life using espionage, political muscle, and economic prowess.


RE: Perfect
By Reclaimer77 on 6/2/2008 12:59:28 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I think it's a little juvenile or naive to think they really hate us because of the Koran. They only use their own twisted view or interpretation of the Koran against us to justify their "holy war".


I actually believed this before 911. Until I actually started researching the Koran on my own time and developed my own opinions.

The common spin that the Koran is a good holy book thats been perverted by extremist isn't really true. The fact is, the Koran is inherently evil.

Now before the downrating and flaming and racist calls commence, I'm not Christian. My statements are not biased in any way by other religions.

While a common Christian theme is " I will die for my god/beliefs" The most common theme in the Koran is that " OTHERS will die for OUR beliefs. " This is the fundamental reason I call the Koran and evil book. It preaches non stop hate speech about " unbelievers ". Your only options are to convert or die. What kind of holy book is this ?

Koran 8:12 Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them."

Here Mohammed is giving step by step instruction on how to torture and kill Kafirs if they don't follow Islam.

Koran 9:5 "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

In the above verse Prophet Mohammed is clearly instructing his followers to kill the idolaters in any brutal way possible until the idolaters submit themselves to Islam. Allah is indeed merciful !!

Koran 9:29 Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay the jiziya (poll tax) with the hand of humility.

So here Prophet Mohammed is instructing a true Muslim to fight people of other religions until the unbelievers debase themselves and pay tax for their existence. So the greatness of Islam is revealed only when followers of other religions are humiliated.

Also what I found extremely shocking was direct passages in the Koran attacking other religions. Its flagrant ! And the blatant antisemitism is outrageous ! How can anyone call this a good and holy religion when its based on stuff like this ?

Koran 5:51 Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers.


In this verse Prophet Mohammed is clearly instructing his followers never to befriend a Christian or a Jew. Because if they take a Christian or a Jew as a friend, they will commit a wrong deed and Allah's wrath will be on them.

Koran 9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last day, nor hold the forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jiziyah with willing submission. And feel themselves subdued.

Here 'People of the Book' refers to Christians and Jews. The 'Religion Of Truth' refers to Islam. So in the above verse Prophet Mohammed is instructing Muslims to fight and torture Christians and Jews (who do not believe in Islamic version of God) until they pay tax to Muslims for their existence. Muslims are also strictly instructed to make the Christians and Jews feel 'subdued'. Allah is truly benign !!!

I could go on and on. Seriously, pick up the Koran and skimp through it. Inherent evil jumps out of every page at you almost.

So honestly its no mystery why religiously motivated terrorist exist and do what they do. According to the Koran the West is evil and worthy of conquer simply because of what we believe. It has NOTHING to do with our political and military actions.

Sorry for the wall of text.


RE: Perfect
By Adonlude on 6/2/2008 2:06:17 PM , Rating: 3
Excellent list of passages. Let me just add the following summarized difference between Christianity and Islam when it comes to recruiting followers.

The underlying theme in Christianity is to have faith in God, be good to your fellow man, and help spread God's divine message. God will do the rest. God's glory will lead you to the religion or God will punish you for lack of faith. In Christianity God is the only one who takes action.

The underlying theme in Islam is similar to Christianity, the difference being that it is not the diety who is responsible for taking action, it is the followers here on Earth. The Koran instructs followers to make people believe and to punish those who do not, usually with death.

This difference is rather important to agnostics like me seeing as the Islamic belief affects my stay here on Earth whereas the Christian belief does not.


RE: Perfect
By DM0407 on 6/2/2008 3:47:30 PM , Rating: 5
If we can just get Muslims to start a holy war with Scientologist and Polygamists....

Come to think of it, I bet I could pitch a reality show to FOX.


RE: Perfect
By MrPoletski on 6/3/2008 5:25:18 AM , Rating: 2
Was god the person that undertook the crusades?

What people purport to believe and what they actually do are so very different.

I mean, you'd think Christians wouldn't kill, the commandment doesn't leave much room for interpretation, but they do.

I am also agnostic, but I am also more of a christian than a lot of these people who claim to be. As somebody who doesn't (explicitly) believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, I believe more in the teachings of Christ than many who claim to.


RE: Perfect
By gmw1082 on 6/3/2008 8:25:55 AM , Rating: 3
"Was god the person that undertook the crusades?"

Many centuries ago the Catholic church was much like the radical Islamists of today. If you did not follow what the Catholic church believed you would be labeled a heretic and burned at the stake (or whatever torture they decided was necessary). Fortunately Christianity has long since moved away from these sorts of barbaric practices. The past sins of one religion do not justify the sins of other religions.


RE: Perfect
By MrPoletski on 6/3/2008 10:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
But when you have syndicated columnists going around saying things like 'we must invade their countries, kill their leaders and covert them to Christianity' is that really true?

Do we instead have a toned down version nowadays that loosely fits within our legal system?


RE: Perfect
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2008 12:05:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I am also agnostic, but I am also more of a christian than a lot of these people who claim to be.


That, honestly, makes no sense at all.

I think you meant you 'behave more like a Christian'. As an agnostic, you can't technically call yourself a Christian can you ?


RE: Perfect
By MrPoletski on 6/3/2008 10:35:01 PM , Rating: 2
I can still be more of a christian than somebody who is clearly not following christian teachings, but claims to be.

I am not a christian, but some people who claim to be are absolutely not.


RE: Perfect
By Abbaddon on 6/4/2008 3:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
I agree and let me add a phrase from Mahatma Gandhi:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
I am agnostic too and I see most Christians and (specially) Jews pretty hypocrites.


RE: Perfect
By Egger on 6/6/2008 12:11:22 AM , Rating: 2
Something I think you should also consider is the 'lost in translation' factor in every 'holy' book. Even more ironically, from what I understand, the implied meaning of Islamic scripture is laden with metaphors and references that basically only make sense in Arabic, unfortunately. What most people tend to read is the 'me-al' or an interpreted 'meaning of the Quran' book rather than an original Arabic item. I won't argue that I know the tip of the iceberg about it, but from what I can tell, the violence spurred from 'extremists' is the result of an oppressing ideology that utilizes religion to justify the said ideology. Thereby, the extremists somehow infer that they are on a 'holy mission' when they go all Jihad on ya'll. The 'holy war' or Jihad referred to in the Quran is the war of being at peace with ones self to accept the existence of a higher being (God, Allah, whatever). The interpretation (or misinterpretation rather) has been that the war is to be waged with non-believers. That's how Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Palestine and Yemen ended up so screwed up while some relatively moderate countries such as Malaysia and Turkey end up pretty decent. And to consider, while not exactly solely 'Turkish' history, the Ottoman Empire was once the largest empire on earth, nearly spreading all over Europe and was given 'divine rule over Islam' by the Arabs. Funnily enough, nations under the Ottoman rule were never forced to convert to Islam (much to the dismay of various Arab nations who thereby regretted their decision in empowering the Ottoman royalty with the task of defending the religion), and existed peacefully for an extended period of time before the uprisings and separations began. In the midst of all this, the devotion to the understanding of Islam, 'tasavvuf' was born due to the fact that Arabic nations were beginning to tout around their own interpretations of the Quran in hopes of collecting enough followers to separate from the Ottoman empire. Tasavvuf thinkers are still considered some of the greatest middle eastern philosophers, artists and holy figures, as they reached a level of understanding that is very much devoid (as it was then) today. They were also among the most peaceful people, devoting their lives to thinking and listening rather than killing and shouting. It's no wonder, while Islamic nations and experts in the field accept their work as great, Arabic nations denounce them with heresy.

Anyway, I'll end my rant there as I just wanted to provide a little more insight into the 'Islam is evil' situation. While I won't go all hippie and say all organization is evil dude, and I won't flash any of the ridiculous cards that tend to be waved around in such discussions (crusades, war in Israel, superpower nations, arms trades etc). My point is that your deduction that the Quran is inherently evil may not be based on the best sources.


RE: Perfect
By MrPoletski on 6/3/2008 4:48:59 AM , Rating: 2
"Silly me. I thought they hated us because of the Koran, which was written in the 8'th century. Were we " propping up " dictators back then ?"

So what if it was written in the 8th century? When do you think the Bible was written? So it's 800 years newer, what were we doing 800 years ago?

Google 'the crusades'.

People are people are people. When driven to desperation we ALL do things we would never consider normally, to not understand this is to not understand humans.


RE: Perfect
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2008 12:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes I should have known the Crusades card would have been pulled sooner or later.

I think you totally missed the point. So because centuries ago the Catholic church, under a false Pope I might add, committed horrible things we're justifying modern day Islamic terrorism ?

quote:
So what if it was written in the 8th century?


Did you actually read my post about the Koran ? Claiming that Islamic terrorism is rooted in modern day actions by the United States is a cheap cop out. In the 8'th century the Koran was preaching murder, torture, bigotry and violent converting of Christians and Jews. Your a fool if you support the party line of Islam being the " religion of peace " thats been perverted by a small minority. The Koran is a book of hate, pure and simple.

quote:
So it's 800 years newer, what were we doing 800 years ago?


But its not 800 years ago. The Crusades are NOT happening. The Middle East, on the other hand, is about as close to 800 years ago as your going to get today. Maybe theres a reason for that ? Oh, thats right, its the West's fault. I forgot. KILL THE INFIDELS !!??

quote:
People are people are people. When driven to desperation we ALL do things we would never consider normally, to not understand this is to not understand humans.


Awwww isn't that cute. Hey guys, people are people. Man, thats deep. When you put it that way, the terrorists don't seem that bad. Hey, they are just desperate. Good point ! You know I wish I could take back everything I said about them... in fact, I might just make friends with one. Who wants a hug !??


RE: Perfect
By MrPoletski on 6/4/2008 8:54:24 AM , Rating: 1
Ah I see you seem to be equating all Muslims as terrorists here. Yanno you can pick phrases out of the bible that preach some shocking stuff too. The difference is the bible has changed a helluva lot since it was written, the koran has not.

People of all faiths, all creeds and colours did that shit in those times.

The reason for the attacks on us is US, British and Later Israeli foreign policy over the last 100 years.

We have WALKED ALL OVER those people, time and time again. We have military bases EVERYWHERE over there and we constantly interfere with the running of their countries.

What would YOU say if Iran built a missile base on or very close to the USA? Google the cuban missile crisis to see what happened the last time.


RE: Perfect
By borismkv on 5/31/2008 11:04:08 PM , Rating: 5
BAAAAAA! SHEEP!

Seriously, there's never a "whole reason" for anything. There are a million things that could contribute to their hatred. Anyone who gives you a single reason for any major world occurrence is selling propaganda, not thoughtfulness. The US was one of the major forces behind the creation of the nation of Israel, which almost every middle eastern country attacked without coercion and lost to several years ago. Now they can't stand their presence there. This, too, has contributed to their hatred of us.

Another reason is control. The leaders of countries in the middle east realize that large groups of people won't pay attention to their own evils when there's a giant evil thing that wants to destroy their way of life. So the leaders of many middle eastern countries stir up hatred of the west because it means they don't have to worry about the peasants rising up against them. This is the whole purpose of nationalism.

Yet another reason is a desire for power. The leaders of the majority of terrorist groups want very little more than to have more and more power. What power monger wouldn't drool at the idea of having hundreds and thousands of people willing to kill themselves just to push their viewpoint forward?

I'm sorry, friend. But your simplistic version of why they hate the west is both overly simplistic, and utterly short-sighted. Learn to think for yourself. Don't just go around repeating propaganda.


RE: Perfect
By nayy on 6/1/2008 11:31:18 AM , Rating: 2
Excellent post!, i just would like to point out that the second reason you present is not valid only in the middle east, several governments create an enemy in order to justify their actions and policies. If you live in the US you are probably familiar with the "war on <theme of the month>" practice


RE: Perfect
By Kaleid on 6/1/2008 4:39:38 PM , Rating: 4
" Don't just go around repeating propaganda."
The simplistic propaganda would be "they hate us for our freedoms".


RE: Perfect
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2008 7:11:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The US was one of the major forces behind the creation of the nation of Israel, which almost every middle eastern country attacked without coercion and lost to several years ago. Now they can't stand their presence there. This, too, has contributed to their hatred of us.


Yes good point. I guess we shouldn't have invaded any " holy land ". And sat and watched with the rest of the UN while an entire culture, perhaps race, were wiped out due to genocide.

Or the first Gulf War. Supporting allies like Kuwait wasn't a big deal right ? We should of allowed them to be invaded and occupied by Saddam's forces. Screw doing the right thing !! Being loved by the rest of the world is whats most important !

Until the rest of the world gets off their collective ass every time something in their own backyard happens that they should prevent, I guess its just easier to hate the US. I guess they sleep good at night knowing they tried. Too bad 5 UN meetings that culminate in a few strongly written letters don't always stop power hungry conquer mongering dictators cold.


RE: Perfect
By Kaleid on 6/1/2008 7:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well, most of the world supported the first Gulf war if I remember correctly (certainly after the bogus incubator story) and definitely the post 9/11 Afghanistan war but the support for the latest Iraq war stumbled because, it seems to me at least, no one (read: few) believed that this was part of the war against terrorism. I recall thinking, why do we hear Saddam instead of Osama all so soon?


RE: Perfect
By Abbaddon on 6/4/2008 4:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
In first place there were other options before invading Irak. Second place, U.S. did not invade Irak for the second time with UN but against its recommendations. Third, U.S. invaded Irak with false information (WMD anyone?).
There are clear indications about the real implications for such invasion, but I will let you make a google search for them...
There are lot of problems in East Europe and Africa with religions too, why isn't U.S. "helping" them? The main reason: Damn dirty and dark oil and revenge (Bush).


RE: Perfect
By elgueroloco on 6/4/2008 11:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US propping up shieks/dictators/etc. in the Arab world is the whole reason they hate the West. Tit-for-tat.


Actually, most of the reason they hate us is because of a stupid, self-righteous book written by a douche named Sayyid Qutb back in the 1930's called America That I Saw.

In the book, he details how America is evil because of our capitalism/wealth, because we allow the two sexes to associate freely with eachother (i.e. dance and talk together, even at church functions!!!), and how black people created this evil music called "Jazz," which ignites the Negro's lusts and satisfies their need for loud noise and raucus behavior, or something to that effect.

It's a retarded, uptight, self-righteous, and hypocritical load of crap. He even bashes America for the racist society we had back then, but makes a bunch of racist remarks about Blacks. Can you say hypocrite?

Granted, some of our foreign policy decisions didn't help, but the hatred had already built for a long time because of that stupid book.


RE: Perfect
By elgueroloco on 6/5/2008 12:11:08 AM , Rating: 2
Among the decisions that have caused middle-easterners to hate us:

Israel: We helped create Israel so the Jews would not be slaughtered. The Arabs of the region (who were getting thier own state) refused to accept the existence of a Jewish state, and went to war to stop its creation. They lost badly, resulting in their displacement, their lack of statehood, and everything else bad about their current situation. They brought it on themselves, and have been sitting in place whining and murdering about it for the last 60 years instead of making peace and moving on. Hardly our fault, and I feel the US did the right thing in supporting Israel (though not necessarily every action they've taken).

Second decision - Gulf War I:
Osama bin Laden spoke out very actively against the Saudi gov't for letting the US come in and defend their lands because we are infidels. Eventually he got out of line and was exiled. After that, he began actively targeting the US for terror. Should we have refused the Saudi's pleas for help? And Kuwait's? The Saudis were in danger, and Kuwait had already been invaded. Again, we did the right thing by helping them, and again the bad guys hated us for it.

Our fault? I really don't think so.


So, a couple kids mess with Comcast for a few hours...
By Noya on 5/31/2008 1:45:54 PM , Rating: 5
...and the FBI vows to track them down.

A rather small companies site is screwed for several days by a anti-pirate firm backed by a huge corporate conglomerate (RIAA/MPAA) and the FBI states "We'll look into it".

When's the revolution start?




By Reclaimer77 on 5/31/2008 3:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
Whats ironic is Comcrap didn't suffer half as much damages as these guys did from the hack.


By MeTaedet on 5/31/2008 3:51:36 PM , Rating: 5
Sometime between four and never. Americans are much too patriotic and their schemata too much couched in insane ideas like "The U.S.A. is God's favoritest country evar (for some reason) and he would never allow its leadership to become corrupt or anything of the sort. He is guiding this country every step of the way; therefore, we needn't exercise any vigilance or take interest in politics or affairs of the state." and "to question leadership is tantamount to questioning the will of god." (I apologize for the gross mischaracterization, for I am aware that these ideas would be expressed in a din of inarticulate angry grunts and moans and not coherent easily understood language.)

So, I just don't see it happening. Maybe if you took everyone's movies, television, and music away they'd find occasion for revolt. They just don't mind, though, when psychopaths take control of a country and start needless wars with other countries killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in order to make money for themselves and their friends in big business. But, yes, take away their sitcoms and American Idol, well, it's a frightful thing to think how extremely bloody and vicious things would get.

On a tangential note, I don't see why people are so disposed to repudiate conspiracy theories with such alacrity and vehemence having performed no analyzation save so much as should elicit aversion to the idea. If you have any understanding of history or of human psychology, you should know that it is no peculiar or unexpected thing that a corrupt leadership should deceive its people in order to gain power and money. And one needn't even look at history. How many countries in the world today are known to feature highly corrupt government? Yet, if one puts forth some conspiracy theory of which the leaders of the US and their actions are the subject, well, then, you must be crazy, a crazy insane conspiracy theorist whose ideas can safely be cast aside without even the most cursory investigation into them and be ignored. Yes, in the minds of Americans today, all one needs to do to refute another's claims is to label that person a conspiracy theorist or make some other similarly specious argument based on some irrelevant observation about the person's character or appearance.

/People are smart.
//I know I write long posts, but I write precious few (once a week or less), so perhaps I can be indulged and you can forbear to leave rude comments like "tl;dr" and so forth.


By Parhel on 5/31/2008 11:28:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Do you live here ? I want to know where you live in the US that you hear people actually saying this. Because I don't hear it or see it.


. . . says the guy who got really upset when someone suggested that the USA didn't produce the world's greatest beef.

I'm just kidding with you, in case it wasn't obvious.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2008 11:09:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
. . . says the guy who got really upset when someone suggested that the USA didn't produce the world's greatest beef.


AHAHAHA ! Well he went a bit far saying " usa beef taste like rats ". Which suggest that he must have eaten rats at some point huh ?

quote:
I'm just kidding with you, in case it wasn't obvious.


Gotcha. That was funny :)


By mindless1 on 6/1/2008 4:48:17 AM , Rating: 2
Well I live here and yes, that's how they act.

Take for example the news article on Dailytech about considering free internet access for everyone, but to block porn. Porn, not extreme violence or drugs, or anything else. Porn in itself is not illegal, so where do you think the influence to do this comes from?


By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2008 11:04:51 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't the United States have one of the largest porn industries in the world ? Come on, there can't be THAT many people who have a problem with it.

Daily Tech articles are not the soul and voice of everyone. Take them with a grain of salt.


By mindless1 on 6/1/2008 11:48:57 PM , Rating: 3
The DailyTech article was about (a few in) the government's intentions, which - whether soul and voice or not, is directly related to the matter of attempts to restrict porn access for free broadband.

Was it the majority who decided that the FCC should auction off analog spectrum? Was it the majority who decided, rather than a public opinion poll later, we should be in Iraq or elsewhere? Government action has little to do with how many people think [anything in particular].

What you aren't seeing is that it doesn't matter if there are "THAT" many people that have a problem with it. That is exactly the point, that there may or may not be many who have a problem with it and yet the government, as always, is not concerned with what the majority want but rather trying to play babysitter or moral leader with a religious slant, since it is not illegal.


By theapparition on 6/2/2008 2:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Porn in itself is not illegal, so where do you think the influence to do this comes from?

Yes it is........illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to view or posses.

They want to restrict porn the same way the FCC restricts porn on broadcast television. If it's free access for everyone, how do you regulate that the viewer is over 18? They have a set of standards for free television. If you don't like it, you can always pay to watch your porn. The daily tech article was lax, as they also wanted to ban explicit drug use or anything considered "indecent".

Exactly the same model we have now, so why are you now complaining?


By Fracture on 6/3/2008 4:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
Porn itself is a statutory offense, whereas exploitation of others is the actual crime.

Statutory offenses are not crimes in and of themselves since they are legal for others and our Declaration states that "All men are created equal" (you cannot have discriminatory laws). They are instead enforced by the society by which set them forth.

Such other similar issues are gun ownership, drinking age, driving age, and tobacco. The government should be wary of impeding access to any particular body of people.


By Fracture on 6/3/2008 4:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
Porn itself is a statutory offense, whereas exploitation of others is the actual crime.

Statutory offenses are not crimes in and of themselves since they are legal for others and our Declaration states that "All men are created equal" (you cannot have discriminatory laws). They are instead enforced by the society by which set them forth.

Such other similar issues are gun ownership, drinking age, driving age, and tobacco. The government should be wary of impeding access to any particular body of people.


By bodar on 6/1/2008 10:08:17 AM , Rating: 2
Just because you don't see it where you live doesn't mean that evangelicals do not hold an insane amount of political sway in this country.

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/friends_of_god/sy...
http://www.battlecry.com/pages/bconcnn.php


By Kaleid on 6/1/2008 4:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
Wait what? Did you just say Obama is a muslim? One would hope that the rev Wright "controversy" would've taught people enough to know that he too (has conformed) to christianity.

("controversy", because Obama didn't say the words that the preacher said doesn't mean that Obama agree with it. Similarly I've heard some pretty weird stuff from my friends but that doesn't mean that I agree with it. Nor do I think McCain agrees with the preachers that he is tied to in some way or another. Luckily none of the preachers run for office, seems to difficult to find sane ones)


By Kaleid on 6/1/2008 4:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
Very poorly worded. But I suppose people get the meaning, like Obama doesn't necessarily agree with the preachers viewpoints.


By JWalk on 6/1/2008 4:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
See, this is why Obama doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the presidency. For the most part, Americans are too lazy or self-absorbed to check into the facts for themselves. Obama's name sounds Muslim, so therefore he must be Muslim. Brilliant.

By the way, I am American. And I am not a Obama supporter. But, it is still sad to me that the guy will be passed over because of ignorance more than choice.


By Symmetriad on 6/2/2008 11:41:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Please, give me a bit more credit than that.


Not unless you give us a good reason for claiming that Obama's a Muslim, when the barest modicum of research would have informed you otherwise. How do you expect us to take your arguments seriously when you make such egregiously uninformed claims?


By MrPoletski on 6/3/2008 10:47:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I suggest to you that Obama, a Muslim running for the highest office in the country,


Ah so I see the propaganda machine worked on you then. Where the hell did you get the idea he is a Muslim from?


Someone screwed up
By yost007 on 5/31/2008 10:03:16 AM , Rating: 5

Denial of service attacks are illegal in the US under 12 different statutes, including the Economic Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.




RE: Someone screwed up
By mmntech on 5/31/2008 10:35:28 AM , Rating: 5
So is seizing people's tracking history from their ISP without a warrant, but the entertainment industry is still pushing for that, and they've almost succeeded with the ACTA.

As I've said before, this circus is much more entertaining than anything on TV. I think Hollywood with it's piracy hysteria automatically thinks that everyone using Torrents is using them for illegal purposes. To them, they have the right to spy and attack people who do, even if they're just using it to download the latest copy of Ubuntu. More often than not it is the legitimate users who get hit the hardest. Their attack dog MediaDefender ironically resorts to illegal means of stopping "illegal piracy". Hopefully they'll get sued into oblivion by Revision3.


RE: Someone screwed up
By amanojaku on 5/31/2008 10:54:35 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Those who don't know should read RFC 1087, "Ethics and the Internet".

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1087

quote:
The IAB strongly endorses the view of the Division Advisory Panel of the National Science Foundation Division of Network, Communications Research and Infrastructure which, in paraphrase, characterized as unethical and unacceptable any activity which purposely:

(a) seeks to gain unauthorized access to the resources of the Internet,
(b) disrupts the intended use of the Internet,
(c) wastes resources (people, capacity, computer) through such actions,
(d) destroys the integrity of computer-based information, and/or
(e) compromises the privacy of users.

And California's cyber crime law s502:

quote:
(c) Except as provided in subdivision (h), any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a public offense:

(5) Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.

http://nsi.org/Library/Compsec/computerlaw/Califor...

There's only one problem: IP addresses can be forged. There needs to be additional proof that the traffic came from MediaDefender, like a corresponding outbound traffic spike from MediaDefender's servers at the same time as the attack. I'm surpised Revision3 didn't have a proper filtering device in place. There are intrusion protection systems and firewalls built for this purpose, and they can block more than 8000 packets per second.


RE: Someone screwed up
By Zoomer on 5/31/2008 10:42:21 PM , Rating: 3
Not if the inbound packets saturate the link that connects their servers to the net.

You'd need filtering further upstream, at a level where the packets don't overwhelm the link.


RE: Someone screwed up
By chick0n on 6/2/2008 1:19:16 AM , Rating: 1
Im pretty sure those guys working at Revision can tell if the IP is fake or real.

Sorry but you failed.


RE: Someone screwed up
By Nik00117 on 5/31/2008 6:47:03 PM , Rating: 3
Then i'd be pressing charges out the ying yang. No seriously I would, I'd bascially tell Mediadefender to lawyer up, cause they are going need it.


RE: Someone screwed up
By Scabies on 5/31/2008 9:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno, suit == moot when we're talking record companies (and their underlings), you know any court action is going to end in a settlement and no viable ruling will be made.
Its some kind of sick monopoly where justice favors the rich.


RE: Someone screwed up
By MrPoletski on 6/3/2008 10:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
theslip.nin.com
creative commons license = free to distribute (but u must credit the author)


Maybe this will cause the public to wake up
By DBain on 5/31/2008 10:02:55 AM , Rating: 5
To the fact that the RIAA and it's goons are nothing but mafia-style thugs.

If what the article claims they tried to do is correct, I read it as "MediaDefender attempted to insert BT trackers into their network that were not theirs" which, if they had gotten away with it they probably then would have USED said trackers, whereupon they would have brought suit against this company who did nothing wrong to shut them down. It's called being framed, ladies and gentleman. Despicable.

What's WORSE is when they got CAUGHT framing these poor guys, they then DOS'd their servers! "Whoops, we got caught trying to frame you! Best bring down the servers and hope you can't prove it!" I.. I am simply shocked. I'm not certain what I'm supposed to say on this. I mean, this kind of behaviour is simply inexcuseable. MediaDefender has to KNOW that. They have to acknowledge their actions were not simply illegal, but wrong on a fundamental level.

I am simply at a loss for words.
Devon




RE: Maybe this will cause the public to wake up
By biggsjm on 5/31/08, Rating: -1
RE: Maybe this will cause the public to wake up
By Kougar on 5/31/2008 11:41:05 AM , Rating: 5
The RIAA backs and supports MediaDefender. Perhaps you should give this a read. http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f...


By rcsinfo on 5/31/2008 10:36:13 AM , Rating: 5
I think you sum that up perfectly. The only thing I would point out is that the RIAA themselves are just the goons of the big four recording companies. I'd like to see articles calling out the real source of the money behind MediaDefender:

* EMI
* Sony BMG Music Entertainment
* Universal Music Group
* Warner Music Group

Maybe not coincidentally, Revision3's model of creating original content and distributing it over the net competes directly with these companies.


By TheDoc9 on 5/31/2008 1:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
These guys really are above the law right now any they know it but hopefully someone in a position of power will put a stop to this now.


By DM0407 on 6/2/2008 3:50:54 PM , Rating: 3
Meanwhile, the FBI is hunting down two teenagers from bringing down an email service for a couple hours...


Jim Louderback?
By d4a2n0k on 5/31/2008 11:32:31 AM , Rating: 3
This the same guy from ZDTV before they went tits-up?




RE: Jim Louderback?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/31/2008 1:31:54 PM , Rating: 3
Yes. A lot of the Revision3 guys are from TechTV


RE: Jim Louderback?
By lukasbradley on 5/31/2008 1:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
hey comcast hackers....
By Screwballl on 5/31/2008 10:09:15 AM , Rating: 5
We got your next target... MediaDefender deserves more "attention" than Comcast does right now...




RE: hey comcast hackers....
By DanoruX on 6/1/2008 11:58:12 AM , Rating: 2
Would rate it 6 if I could.


Witch Hunt
By mridion on 5/31/2008 8:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
Nice way to start an internal witch hunt within the company even if it wasn't an insider. Claim it came from an employee!




RE: Witch Hunt
By mridion on 5/31/2008 9:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
was reading about all the mediadefender apps getting released, thats another article haha. Then again perhaps relvant. Hackers could be launching DDOS attempts from Media Defenders network against legitimate sites. But doesnt sound like it if it was trigured by blocking their IP range.


Why do they exist?
By mindless1 on 6/1/2008 5:05:55 AM , Rating: 4
What is our legal system waiting for? This is what MediaDefender does, not some "oops" one-off event, and those paying them do so knowing what is going on. Heads need to roll, examples need to be made before there is an alarming growth of others who think this is an acceptible way to operate on the internet.




MediaDefender BotNet
By soydios on 5/31/2008 4:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
wait a minute, where did MediaDefender get its bots?




P2P technology
By excelsium on 5/31/2008 5:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
I guess the RIAA etc and the big corps behind them don't want to see legit outfits using BT for legit purposes, it makes it hard for them to say P2P is bad.
Also some ISPs don't like this, they love to throttle and otherwise interfere with BT/P2P and the more legit uses P2P has = the more irrirated customers, its going to get far worse as time goes on if throttling/blocking etc continues.




BURN
By MisterModder on 6/25/2008 3:21:43 PM , Rating: 1
THE WITCH.

BITCH.




:(
By sporr on 5/31/08, Rating: 0
wohoo
By slickr on 6/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: wohoo
By cornelius785 on 6/1/2008 1:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
i have a feeling i'm responding to bait, but what do i have to lose?

excuse me, but please get your facts correct. the intial combined deaths was closer to 110,000 deaths and after 5 years was close to 340,000 deaths, far from this '5 million'. i'm basing my numbers from wikipedia, http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/nagasaki.htm... http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.ht...

wikipedia suggests otherwise on the statement 'make gay people'.

i'm fairly certain that the US did not 'invent' or create terrorism. terrorism as a tactic has been going on for many years and certainly did not start when the US became a country. a simple searching of the internet can produce links that back this up, like searching for 'origins of terrorism'.

perhaps maybe you or even someone else can provide proof that backs up your bold claims.


RE: wohoo
By Bender 123 on 6/2/2008 3:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
"Make Gay..."
I thought that was the goal of everyone, to be happy. So I guess this means we are the first country to make people happy!

WOOOO!!! USA! USA! USA!


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki