Patriotic hackers. . .

[gerberdude]

I don't really have anything clever to say about this, just that it speaks for itself. . .and I'd like to meet the whiz kids responsible for it! This is what they get for violating the geneva convention and pasting photos of our POW's all over the airwaves.

http://www.forbes.com/business/newsw...rtr922027.html

[glc]

What would you say if, say, the CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News site got hijacked or defaced by Arab hackers? I'd bet you would be whistling a different tune.

I'm not defending Al Jazeera, but what happened to their site is criminal.

[Strider]

I don't like the Al Jazeera network, but I like looking at all points of views on the war. For me it gives me a better understanding of the War, whereas, if I just visited cnn.com or msnbc.com I would only be getting one side and slanting my view. The major complaint that I have with the Al Jazeera network is they're too graphic, but I geuss war wasn't meant to be pretty.


God Bless Our Troops!

and

May this war be over soon!

[not important]

There are two sides to everything!

[ZANEY123]

is anyone else having promblems getting the english site?

[glc]

It looks to be shut down right now.

[Tiretool]

I am. It's down still evidently.

[gerberdude]

Originally posted by glc What would you say if, say, the CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News site got hijacked or defaced by Arab hackers? I'd bet you would be whistling a different tune. I'm not defending Al Jazeera, but what happened to their site is criminal.

....just playing devils advocate here, but are you saying that websites are off limits somehow during war? I don't know if you caught the story but the coalition had recently knocked Al Jazeera TV of the air by dropping a giant electromagnetic pulse bomb. . .yeah I'd be pissed if they did that to us, you can say that about all facets of war, but it doesn't make me celebrating a small victory for our side somehow taboo. It's psychological warfare, just like littering the entire Iraqi countryside with "persuasive" leaflets giving advice on how one should surrender.

While it was done by criminals, I dont see it is a some horrible violation of the rules of war.

[Mac Medic]

CNN, hasn't that been re-named Al Jazeera-west ?..

[Paul Victorey]

We're at war with Iraq, not an Arab news station.

And no, Al Jazeera wasn't knocked out by the US, Al Jazeera is not based in Iraq, it's based in Qatar. It was formed from the remnants of a spinoff of BBC, the British Broadcasting Corp., and it's actually been praised worldwide for reporting on both sides of issues. In fact, it was created specifically to defy the censorship of many Arab states; BBC Arab was discontinued because the Saudis didn't like a story they aired, and so the politically moderate Emir of Qatar formed Al Jazeera, staffed by many of the same people, to report news without censorship.

In fact, their motto is "we get both sides of the story", and they're famous for giving airtime to things like the Israeli side of the conflicts. They've at one time or another been banned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria for reporting on corruption in those governments. They've had hundreds of their journalists tortured or killed, and many more threatened, so you can't say these people aren't risking their lives to bring the world information.

So Al Jazeera is not something that's just a propaganda factory, they're actually pretty good journalists and as objective as you can expect any journalists to be. In fact, they've specifically refused to air propaganda from any side, and they've never stopped airing a story because it would offend some nation.

[Nuclear Krusader]

How can those hypocrital hackers say they are doing that for freedom while they are denying Al Jazeera the freedom to inform?

I agree that the pics are too brutal and that it lowers the troops morale, but hey, it's war! War has been always brutal and cruel. And there are no such things as "rules of war".

Dunno about you, but I get angry when governments and media minimize the true numbers.

Happened here in Mexico with the last earthquake. They reported only over 29 ppl dead. The true is that there would have been 3 times at least that number of deaths.

[gerberdude]

Paul,

Please understand that I am mature enough to not regard hacking as something "cool" or the "in thing". I understand that it can disrupt peoples lives, and destroy companies and organizations.
With that maturity comes the ability to admit when my mind's been changed, so thank you for educating me on the accolades and legitimacy of Al Jazeera.
However I quote a british official when I describe their choice to display photos of Iraqi citizens dancing on the chests of coalition corpses as completely irresponsible. It is possible that I just have higher journalistic standards. Yes Are body counts newsworthy? Yes. Are hostage situations newsworthy? Yes. Are these types of photographs newsworthy? No, they are deplorable. Again, this may just be my standards being too high, but I am glad to not see American news organs running these videos.
If Al Jazeera deserves a third of the credit you give it, then surely it would realize that these types of photos are best left to the tabloids and the shock-jocks.
In light of my newfound respect for Al Jazeera (despite their best efforts to ruin it) I don't feel compelled to retract my opinion of what these hackers did as justified. I remain convinced that if Al Jazeera hadn't gotten it's collective head stuck up its collective bung-hole then they wouldn't have gotten hit like this. They were laying pretty low until they made that move.
thanks again for convincing me that they are not a tool of a regime, now it's up to them to continue that by being responsible. . .I respectfully await your further attempts at changing my mind.

Gerber

[Paul Victorey]

Al Jazeera actually has agreed not to air anymore footage that is as graphic as the material they aired earlier. And both the British and Al Jazeera have agreed to stop showing closeups of individual POWs where they can be identified.

I think, though, that Al Jazeera's footage is not anything that hasn't been seen before. Yes, it's horrific, but sometimes people need to be reminded about the horrors of war. I think, of all the photos of Vietnam, I remember ones like the naked vietnamese girl running from her burning village, or the famous one showing the suspected VC being executed, with the photo snapped just as the bullet hits him in the head.

I personally think we need to see these images more, lest we forget that these aren't statistics we're dealing with, they aren't just numbers on a page, they are human beings. I personally feel it is irreverant to watch the kind of news you see on TV, the kind that tries to show the war without showing the real war. All you see are flashes of light, smoke and fire, never the real thing. Real people are out there fighting, either for us or against us, and all the hardships they go through become nothing more than some flickering lights and an entertaining evening on American TV.

I think that making the full reality of the facts available to the world is a good thing. It is certainly horrifying to watch people celebrating the death of their enemies, but hiding the facts by refusing to let others see those images doesn't change the facts. And, to me anyway, it seems disrespectful to the people who must endure this war to make the war seem like something other than it is, by refusing to show so many of the things that make the war what it is.

Horrifying pictures, like the above mentioned Vietnam pics, or Nazi concentration camps, or bodies on Normandy, or the skull map of Cambodia are certainly disturbing, but I think they are pictures that we must all see, so that every human bears witness to the realities of wars, genocides, etc., lest they become only statistics and not people to us.

[Nuclear Krusader]

IMHO, it's also a two edged sword Paul: perhaps if the ppl gets used to these graphic displays of the violence they will grow desensitized eventually and see it as normal. What do you think?

[Psychodic_Greak]

Originally posted by glc What would you say if, say, the CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News site got hijacked or defaced by Arab hackers? I'd bet you would be whistling a different tune. I'm not defending Al Jazeera, but what happened to their site is criminal.

with all due respect GLC, but it may be 'criminal' as you said, but its also American Pride.

Im sure that what happened is seen differently in everyones eyes, but in my eyes I see it as Patriotic and no real harm done. They want to parade our soldiers around all over there website, we'll parade our flag all over theres.

[glc]

Sorry, defacing/hijacking a website is not patriotic. It's criminal. It's no different than painting grafitti on the side of their building. Put up your own website to express your opinion.

[aym]

Originally posted by Psychodic_Greak with all due respect GLC, but it may be 'criminal' as you said, but its also American Pride. Im sure that what happened is seen differently in everyones eyes, but in my eyes I see it as Patriotic and no real harm done. They want to parade our soldiers around all over there website, we'll parade our flag all over theres.

A site was hacked, and you say no real harm was done?

[gerberdude]

Okay, swore that despite starting this trhead I wasn't going to weigh in anymore, but again, I've got to remind some people that we are at WAR.

I realize that Al Jazeera is a third party responsible news gathering organ, but their inability to excersize some journalistic judgement regarding the videos of coalition POWs has enraged the western world and has made it appear as though they are the tool of the regime.
Furthermore, in war, things that are normally criminal become suddenly and strangely NOT CRIMINAL. eg killing people. I am sure that we could all agree that murder is a crime, but in war it suddenly is not. I stick by my original stance that this act of cyber-"crime" is poetic justice for their complete lack of judgement, as it has been seen by almost every sensible person and other news gathering organization in the world.
I hope that they can turn from this stunt and continue back down the road of responsible news gathering.

Gerber

[WJWheels]

Personally, I don't think Al-jazeera is the devil they're made out to be. I can hardly blame them for "catering to their audience" but don't mix them up with Iraqi TV. After all, they're the ONLY window to the world for a large part of the middle eastern and eastern countries. They've interviewed many people representing the U.S. position and shown numerous Iraqi & Arab attrocities also.

btw - today Iraq kicked the Al-jazeera crews out of Baghdad.

[glc]

Last I heard, we are not at war with Al-Jazeera and Iraq is not at war with CNN.

In fact - Al-Jazeera is based in Qatar - as is our Central Command.

[gerberdude]

Conversly, glc, Al Jazeera is not at war with us so they can kindly stop displaying regime propaganda on their airwaves and perpetuating the violation of the Geneva Convention. . .or face the backlash from patriotic hackers. Their third party status in this matter is the ONLY thing that makes this a gray issue.

Gerber

[Paul Victorey]

Well, they aren't displaying propaganda, they're reporting our side of the story equally often, and I think most people are intelligent enough that, presented both sides of the issue, they can decide who to believe for themselves. In fact, Al Jazeera has been banned by Iraq, most likely for reporting on news that was not favorable to Iraq.

Second, they can't violate the Geneva convention, it only applies to governments and people acting on behalf of governments, not private individuals. It might be illegal for Iraq to make the tapes (depending on what "humiliation" means; the original intent was to forbid things like parading them naked through the street, letting people pelt them with rotten fruit, etc), but it's not illegal for any news agency to air them, unless the news agency would be owned by the Iraqi government.

If it was a crime to report on a crime, there would be a lot less news.

[gerberdude]

Paul, I feel like you've missed the mark. Its not about good unbiased reporting, they can do all of that they want to, but in the western world journalism has STANDARDS!!! Standards which do not include abhorrent photos and videos of people abusing POWs! Why must we insist on condoning what they did as some form of reasonable reporting?? IT'S NOT!

Secondly, I realize of course they can't violate the Geneva Convention, but when a country decides to, it's a journalists job to report on it, not perpetuate it. To say, oh look, "Iraq did this" is a lot different from "Oh hey here's the pictures" There are responsible ways and irrresponsible ways of reporting on a crime. And they were irresponsible! Stop trying to stick up for them!

Gerber

[Paul Victorey]

Again, the photos show the reality of war. They're not something anyone likes to see, but people need to know what really happens in a war. Again, think of the Vietnam photos mentioned earlier. Personally, I think these "standards" of the western media amount to deception and cowardice, because they're afraid to offend anyone, and they seek to put a spin on this war, and refuse to report anything that disagrees with their position. Bad though they are, these things are part of war, and reporting on only the "good" parts of war, if there are any, seems disrespectful to the soldiers and civilians who have to live this war.

They also haven't truly aired anything which is necessarily abuse of POWs. It's far from clear that Iraq's public interviews are adequate to constitute "humiliation", a clause which was meant to protect against much worse abuses.

[shazam]

I am amazed that you do not recognize sensationalism journalism when you see it. They all do it. It is called ratings. As far as the hackers go, yes it is wrong. But some people retaliate the only way they know how.

[Paul Victorey]

It's kind of hard to accuse Al Jazeera of being out for ratings, considering they make no profit and they have no true competition in their market. Plus, the fact that they have many reporters arrested, tortured, or killed for bringing the news out really shows that they are in fact dedicated to bringing information to the public, and aren't just "shock jocks" out to make a buck or two at someone else's expense.

[shazam]

Paul today sat. Al Jazeera claims that our forces have not entered Baghdad. The footage seen is not of Baghdad. We also are not in the airport. I also beleave that thy are as you call them shock jocks.PBS is also non profit. NO shock jocks and very few vewers.

[Paul Victorey]

That's funny, because the headline of Al Jazeera's website at the moment (7 minutes after you posted) is "US-led forces thrust into Baghdad".

And the kind of footage aired on Al Jazerera is very similar to the footage I've seen on PBS, actually. PBS has aired things every bit as graphic as Al Jazeera.

[Eaglefeather]

It is the responsibility of any true news gathering and distribution organization to do exactly that. Gather and distrubte the news. I for one do not want some person or group of persons, deciding which news I should here, see or read. That my friends is censureship.

War is an ugly necessity. It should not be prettied up in the news. People have a right to know the good, the bad and the ugly.

If you don't want to see it, don't watch it.
If you don't want to hear it, don't listen.

But please do not tell me what I can or can not watch or hear.

If what is being reported is the truth, then it should be reported in full, no glossing over of facts.

There should only be one STANDARD when it comes to reporting and that is tell and show the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

Truth is not sensationalism.

Either hacking is a crime or it is not. It can not be a crime for some and not for others. To believe otherwise is to put our entire Democratic systems and Freedom of thought and speech at peril.

What we should be protesting is our own news services making accusations and then saying they have photographic proof but we are not mature enough too see it. As long as they give a warning that something is graphically unsettling first, those photos should have been shown.

[avx]

Funniest thing about this thread is that no one takes into consideration that the hackers that did this may be our very own government, as you all may know, the US has a Cyber Task Force specifically designed to combat cyber attacks by terrorist's. You cant tell me that all of the guys just play by the rules and only stick on defense. As far as Im concerned, they got soldiers over thier that wave the white flag, and dress as civilians, so the minute our boys turn their backs, they get shot...and of course america still must and will follow the rules of engagement, and no matter what will not shoot innocent civilians unless prevoked. We always have to play by the rules, and do everything to the T, so to avoid criticism. Dont get me wrong, Im with glc, hacking is a crime, and if you hack you should be punished accordingly, because 9 times out of 10 the person who is hacking is merely doing it for personal gain, and bragging rights...but in this situation...they should feel lucky thats the only rule being broke against them...