4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d 1346
gobbo writes "The buzz amongst my Muslim acquaintances is that the al-Jazeera site is under "cyber-attack." Shortly after posting photos of mangled Iraqi children the server became unavailable. I don't have satellite TV to see if they are reporting anything on al-Jazeera itself, but pinging their name servers fails too. For those who don't already know, the al-Jazeera channel is a pan-Arabic satellite TV channel out of Qatar." While I am certain many h4x0rs are political, I can't help thinking that script kiddies are like moths to the flame of rising page views. (this was initially posted incorrectly, and has been moved to the proper date)
First Post?!? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:First Post?!? (Score:2)
Re:First Post?!? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:First Post?!? (Score:2)
Answer....
chrisd
PS: Also, I hope people don't get modded down for noting the date, I mean, that was my screwup after all....even if -now- it's off topic.
Re:First Post?!? (Score:2)
Yes, when the correction has a typo "ans has been..."
Re:First Post?!? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:First Post?!? (Score:5, Funny)
I guess the extra traffic couldn't help the situation.
Oh, too bad...
Re:Hate to mess up the |-|@0R auguement, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
can't have anything contradicting our propaganda, can we?
Military targets? (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, the US military claimed that Iraqi TV, as it was providing information and instruction to Iraqi troops, was a legitimate military command and control target. Would similar online media outlets be similarly classified?
More importantly, would hackers, even script kiddies, be considered combatants if they attack such a military target in a time of war?
I don't think this has any practical implications, just philosophical...
Re:Military targets? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a "similar" outlet. Unless you mean to bomb any foreign media that don't toe Rumsfeld's line. In spite of David Letterman sketches, al-Jazeera is neither Afghani or Iraqi, but is based in Qatar.
See this article [msnbc.com] on its origins.
They've also got a new English service [aljazeera.net]. (Which was heavily overloaded even before this, so you'll have a hard time seeing it.)Re:Military targets? (Score:5, Insightful)
CNN portrayed as lying, deceitful, mouthpiece of the US administration.
al-Jazeera portrayed as a font of wisdom and truth.
Both statements are crap CNN may well sanitise its stories, and portray the US side (hey..it's a US company)
But al-Jazeera is at least equally as bad.
In reference to the current fighting...
Does AJ show pics and video of Iraqi troops hiding among civilians and using them as shields? No
Does AJ show report on the Iraqi troops using a hospital for a weapons cache? No
Does AJ report on the use of explosives at the oil well heads? No.
Does AJ report on the ecological disaster of lighting oil filled trenches on fire? No
If you want to say CNN is not reporting 'fairly', OK..that may well be true.
But please do NOT hold up AJ as the bastion of truth and objectivity.
Excellent story on NPR (Score:3, Insightful)
One th
Re:Military targets? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does AJ show pics and video of Iraqi troops hiding among civilians and using them as shields? No
Has this been independantly corroborated? No.
Does AJ show report on the Iraqi troops using a hospital for a weapons cache? No
Has this been independantly corroborated? No.
Does AJ report on the use of explosives at the oil well heads? No.
Yes. Yes they do
Does AJ report on the ecological disaster of lighting oil filled trenches on fire? No
Yes. Yes they do.
Who modded this retard and her/his americentric point of view up?
Few people think al-Jazeera is unbiased, to compare it to CNN is frankly laughable.
People are missing the best application of this (Score:3, Funny)
CNN and al-Jazeera (Score:3, Interesting)
Now the interesting bit is that Aaron Brown pointed out that their newsroom monitors
Re:Military targets? (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover to a viewer saturated with American media, these other sources are likely to appear as 'biased'
Re:Military targets? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Military targets? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes.
If it was also a state owned mouthpiece of the government, of course.
Iraqi TV and al-Jazzera are different things, which some posters seem to have confused.
Weird (Score:5, Insightful)
First time I've seen a story that doesn't appear on the main
I do have to say that I am saddened to see this happen because although Al Jazeera may have been biased on the side of Iraq, it is good to have alternative news sources to get the other side's story from. And despite what many people may whole-heartedly claim, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NBC, etc all do have a sense of American bias in them. That's besides the fact that half of their reporting is so horrible, it is actually hard to watch sometimes. I've found myself turning off the TV numerous times in response to my disgust for some of the stuff they hack out as "news". Although, I have found the embedded reporter's reports quite interesting, and you can always catch the various briefings, latest field updates, and general news easily enough. But, these agencies spend way to much time on sensationalism, heart-string-picking, etc.
I hope Al Jazeera can get their site back up soon.
Re:Weird (Score:2)
I don't know how biased they are towards Iraq. They are based in Qatar, and funded by that government. The Qatar government is allied with the United States here.
Re:Weird (Score:5, Informative)
Before the current war, it was a lot like a cross between CNN, with news & comentary, and Discovery, with documentaries.
It has an interesting history. As I understand it, the prince of Qatar funds it, but leaves it in the hands of the station to do all their own editorial control.
It definitely had an Arab point of view, but to me that makes sense. Looking at it from that point of view, I would almost say that it is fairly balanced. Just as an American would probably find CNN fairly balanced.
They don't hesitate to put Americans on (translated - unless you're former embassador Dennis Ross - he showed up on a debate show and handled it all in BEATUFIUL Arabic!). Rice and Powell have both been on there, but so has Saddam, and Tariq Aziz.
Is there an anti-American slant? Well, even though few Arabs like Saddam and his regime, very few are very keen on the idea of a superpower coming in and taking out an Arab regime. The whole region has an unpleasant history of colonialism and occupation, and for many, this just appears to be another chapter in it. A lot will depend on how we handle the post-Saddam iraq.
Another thing that is interesting... it's not a new thing that they're showing dead bodies and such. For as long as I've watched, they've not had a probelm with showing dead Palestinians or dead Israelis in that conflict. They don't talk over it either - sometimes just several minutes of showing what is going on or what has happened.
So, I've rambled on, not really answering your question, but I don't often get to talk about Al-Jazeera.
How to watch Iraqi TV on the Web... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Weird (Score:5, Informative)
Not Weird (Score:3, Funny)
CNN is an American company. I'm an American. I don't want to see negative stories about my country. If they show me negative stories, I might change the channel. CNN knows this. CNN's advertiser's know this.
Does CNN broadcast biased stories? Probably Not.
Is CNN biased in its choice of stories? Definitely Yes.
Re:Weird (Score:2)
Re:Weird (Score:5, Insightful)
The article also mentioned that BBC seems to be doing a better job trying objective than US stations.
Re:Weird (Score:3, Insightful)
the US has lost 24 soldiers and has gained a large portion of Iraqi territory, and has killed at least 1000 Iraqi soldiers, (fox is reporting something like 35,000 dead Iraqis, but I don't buy that at all) but the 3ID estimates that it has killed 800 Iraqis at the cost of 1 American... how is that heavy losses for small gains??!!
Re:Weird (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes sense to me both ways. The radio operator is 'embedded', but would be considered part of the 'force'. Do you really think after 4 journalists being killed, if th
Re:Weird (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone thinks that they are centrist. Anyone right of them is conservative, anyone left is them is liberal. Which is why Democrats call ABC, CBS, and NBC conservative news, yet Republicans call it liberal news. That is also why Democrats call Fox News very conservative, and Republicans call in "balanced". But, the important thing is, that both the liberal and the conservative views are legitamite.
In order to report the news in an unbiased way, the reporter must assume an equidistant view from both warring sides. That is, the American news sources would have to decide that the Americans aren't automatically correct, and that Saddam isn't automatically wrong. The problem is, that legitamizes Saddam's regime to many who think it illegitamite, and that is something many do not want to do.
Also, unbiased reporting (which I don't believe exists) wouldn't have the flare behind it the biased reporting does. When people are biased, they go the extra mile to prove their point. I like that a lot better.
Re:Weird (Score:4, Insightful)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
You tell 'em, elmagil!
It is clear that the embedded journalists are there to ensure that we get the best quality, most up-to-date propaganda ever seen in the history of the world.
Re:Weird (Score:2)
I don't know if it's fair to call Al Jazeera a "news" source. It's pure political propaganda...Jihad TV [nationalreview.com]. If you want to see what Middle Easterners are seeing and reading, that's cool, but calling it news is unfair. It's beyond biased.
Journalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Parading POWs before the cameras is a violation of the Geneva conventions regarding the treatment of those prisoners. Subjecting them to humiliation or public curiosity is not allowed. Of course, I don't think anyone really thought that Saddam would follow ANY
Not even close to the same thing (Score:3, Insightful)
The US also doesn't have soldiers making a show of displaying dead iraqis, lifting them up by the hair so you can clearly see their faces...
The Iraqi state TV deliberately made a show of displaying their grisly war trophies. I've seen the US media show occasional pictures of POWs in passing, but nothing to the degree that Al Jazeera did.
Intent counts for a great deal... Iraqi TV'
Re:Weird (Score:5, Insightful)
News networks aren't evil. And they aren't really biased. They're just fucking lazy.
Re:Weird (Score:3, Interesting)
I heard on Rush Limbaugh that Bush's administration was really wanting those critical questions from Arab journalists. They want to answer the tough, accusatory questions in order to get their message out to the anti-Bush protesters.
News networks are ... lazy.
Lazy? They're risking the lives of their best reporters to find out what's going on! It's not like they can speed-dial Saddam's henchmen on a cell phone from their humvee (or newsroom, for that matter). I
They wouldn't touch reporters (Score:3, Interesting)
Little orphan postie (Score:2)
It's funny to watch how righteous some authorities in the US are getting about Al-Jazeera. I mean, they describe it as a propaganda machine whose credibility is based on being an independant station... sounds like CNN, right? So now we have two CNNs dueling for the plaque-congested hearts and couch-deadened minds of the people! That's a danger that's new to the history of warfare, innit?
Re:Little orphan postie (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll criticize both CNN, FOX and NBC for not being clear enough at times distinguishing what is "confirmed" from what is an initial report. The pundits have been even worse. The "chemical weapons plan" from Sunday night was very embarrassing. So was the "uprising" in Basra. Of cour
Not to be picky but... (Score:3, Insightful)
English Al-Jazeera (Score:3, Interesting)
The truth will remain elusive.
Re:English Al-Jazeera (Score:2)
I know...I've been waiting for this for a long time. I try to read as much as I can from a variety of viewpoints. There's not too much in the way of english language arab news. Well, there is the Arab News [arabnews.com] of saudi arabia. But al Jazeera seems to be quite popular and it would have been interesting to see what all the fuss is about.
It does make you wonder who the attackers are.
Submission Title Problem (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a serious issue that should be generating lively debate here on
I rather doubt "script-kiddies" are involved in this, and as I write this the sites are even more down than they were yesterday (DNS lookups fail).
Regardless of what you think of this development, it's pretty obviously both "news for nerds" and "stuff that m
Re:Submission Title Problem (Score:2)
Perhaps 133t speak presents a problem moderation by increasing the pool of comments that cry out for negative moderation, but there's nothing official Slashdot can do about it other than create some sort of auto-censoring l33t filter.
And it's not as if entire front page postings are in 133t, either. It was just a headline, and a headline's only job is to draw your attention to the body alone. And it did, so it worked.
Also it made sense - grant
L4$T P$0T! (Score:2)
And yes- what is up with slashdot?! But at least this story made it into the older stuff pile- for the past two days I've been constantly loading english.ajazeera.net and checking the google cache for the regular aljazeera.net- nope- its days old.
At least I'm not the only one...
all your jazeera are belong to us.
Re:L4$T P$0T! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:L4$T P$0T! (Score:2)
More (Score:5, Informative)
MOD PARENT UP!!! (Score:2)
Slashdot effect on a global scale? (Score:5, Interesting)
While consulting, I've come across companies doing all sorts of dumb or just lazy things which make their sites slow and not very scalable. Then they get a big burst of unusual activity for whatever reason, their site crashes, and they like to claim conspiracy because it means it's not their fault.
I'll believe this is a DDOS when I see the IRC transcripts from the people claiming to be the perpetrators (if that's not proof, I don't know what is :) Till then, this is Al-Jazeera crying because their site couldn't handle sudden worldwide interest.
Re:Slashdot effect on a global scale? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the article you cited, the DDOS attack is being directed at their name servers, and not the web server (which is why I'm not getting "unable to resolve host" messages). Name servers generally don't wither under high volume - this seems more like a deliberate attack than a large-scale Slashdot effect.
Re:Slashdot effect on a global scale? (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot effect on a global scale? (Score:3, Interesting)
I had some friends discussing this yesterday and someone was quick enough to snag the IP from cache and email it to a few of us. I haven't looked at the photos myself, but I did verify that this IP worked yesterday. Now, it appears to be not responding any better than its name servers did yesterday.
Did you trace to that? (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone is either shut some pipes off to stop the problem, it's REALLY big, or the IP is a typo.
My bets are on a typo. Did you modify a hosts file and use that? or just the IP in a browser...
Re:Did you trace to that? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Slashdot effect on a global scale? (Score:2)
Maybe rotten.com will pick them up.
GF.
Re:Those "banned" pics: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't. However, what other dictators is the US flirting with right now?
The simplest and straightest way to solve this problem is to cut the Gordian knot
Why do you assume this is a Gordian Knot that you can just cut through and solve?
I have yet to see a better solution to dealing with Saddam right now
I agree. However, I have yet to see
Re:Those "banned" pics: (Score:3, Insightful)
"He had the best motives for getting into the worse trouble"
I believe that aptly describes our foreign policy.
More info in Doktor Memory's journal (Score:2)
Ah, how I wish that
Yes I know, don't complain, get off your ass and write it. I know, I know...
Re:More info in Doktor Memory's journal (Score:2)
I used to wish that too, but then I realized that there are pros and cons to a moderated submission queue. For one thing, Slashdot is less self-indulgent and "clique-ish" than k5. For another, the constant "editorial" staff means that
Freedom of the Press (Score:5, Insightful)
I find the apathy on this site towards the possible gagging of a media organization disturbing. On a TV report [abc.net.au] this week, I learnt a lot about al-Jazzeera. Yes, they are pan-Arabic. Yes, they are critical of the US. They've also been threatened by every single Arab country in the region - closed down, ambassadors recalled, physical attacks. And it was bombed by the US in the first Gulf War when it reported the killing of civilians in a supposedly military target.
You can't have it both ways, even in a war. The Net is being used for some of the most blatant propaganda I've ever seen, but shutting down the Arab side of the argument isn't going avoid bigger problems later.
Check out international media (Score:3, Informative)
I do, and Foxnews and CNN look like 24/7 Pentagon infomercials in comparision to serious media.
They don't know anything about a DDOS attack... (Score:2)
Score another one for the USA!
Unfair... (Score:2)
Anyway, considering the very few unbiased news on the war available, DOSing the one that can give another point of view is even dumber than simply DOSing any site.
Yeah (Score:2)
And I'm sure they'll appreciate you causing the additional of
P2P to the rescue? (Score:2)
Yes p2p can be used for more than just music, movies, and porn...
Freedom Of Speech (Score:2, Interesting)
All I have to say to all this is welcome to free speech. People can't stand in front of the Al-Jazeera ofices since they are in Quatar. Personally I think their broadcasts encite riots and extremists actions. They get the inside scoop with wonde
hacked then slashdotted (Score:2)
Damn kick them while they are down. First a DoS from script kiddies, then the slashdot effect.
Well, (Score:2)
-Omar
Freenet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would it be a good idea for Al-jazeera to publish their content on freenet [sf.net]? Their articles would then be immune to any kind of censorship like they claim they are victim of.
ABC cuts gore from injured child's Iraq war photo (Score:5, Informative)
Australia's ABC (TV, I suppose) has reportedly
cropped the portion of a picture of a young
girl's feet, which were to be seen dangling,
after apparently having been blown loose by
an explosion, in the ongoing Irag war.
The report of this "editting" the gore away,
to make a photo more acceptible to Australian
viewing audiences, as well as other revealing
aspects of media censorship, were mentioned on
this morning's Media Report, now available via
audio-on-demand, in RealAudio format, at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/mediarpt/audi
This 27 March program included British photo-
journalist Tim Page talking about this kind
of selective reporting & sanitizing of war
images, eg, from Vietnam to Iraq.
Come back in about a week for the transcript,
eg at URL:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/mediarpt/st
War solves nothing... unless, of course,
your company is selling to Defense...
Fox News (Score:2, Funny)
Four weeks later... (Score:2)
"No, really, this time we actually are being DDOSed!"
Said the IT guy at Aljazeera. 3 weeks ago he admitted to wanting a little free publicity when one of his co workers mentioned that they were surprised no one was trying any serious computer hacking on either side of the war. "Sometimes the copy cats just need a little kick."
</tongueincheek>
I'm sincerely sorry to see this happen. I hadn't realized they had an english arm, I've been going to the arabic site just to see
Telecommunications assault: enemy slashdotted? (Score:2)
Did you try /before/ they posted pics? (Score:2)
Hey look, the last thing slashdot linked to is also down. Good job at not understanding the concept of the internet. Kill yourself.
Slashdot (Score:3, Informative)
I noticed an add on
went out of curiosity and saw "We help fund anti-war organizations
like EndTheWar.org" EndTheWar.org This site is truely disturbing,Using the
Al Jazeera photos of young kids with their heads blown off for propaganda.
After doing some more digging on just who these people are I found links
all over the place for WPK (workers party korea) led by General Secretary
Kim Jong il and International A.N.S.W.E.R. headed by Brian Becker who just
with a simple google search [google.com]shows up ties to WPK. Other more disturbing things that
I do not want to say because this was a few days ago and I cannot provide
links until I get access back the machine I was using at the time.Feel free to
look it up yourselvs you may find something I didn't.
I hope slashdot will pay closer attention to who's adds they are promoting
Content still available... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure I'd buy into the organized DDOS, but rather into a (near) world-wide slashdotting type effect. I've been frequenting their website quite a bit over the last week, and it's been fading in and out of existence (at least for my locale) quite often.
Most of the 'scandalous' images have been slurped from various sources and they're available in plenty of places. One such site is http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulfwar2/ [thememoryhole.org] (be gentle!), which includes the pictures of the supposedly executed soldiers.
I hope Al-Jazeera beefs up their infrastructure and expands their newly launched minimal english service... it's nice to have news from outside sources (ie: outside the US sphere of influence) with an opposite view-point.
Re:Content still available... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong in a couple of ways, I think. First, Al Jazeera, while most cerainly outside U.S. control, is far from being outside U.S. influence. It is truly said that "he who angers you controls you". Al Jazeera is run by people so opposed to the United States and its policies that they violate every tenet of journalistic professionalism in their efforts to make Americans look bad. The result
declare fatwah on Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Point of fact (Score:3, Informative)
IP Address was 217.26.193.10 (Score:3, Interesting)
I investigated that IP earlier today via several international Looking Glasses with no luck at all. As was pointed out elsewhere, there ain't no routes..
A short history of how the U.S. got into this mess (Score:3, Informative)
From reading the comments, I've realized that few Slashdot commenters know much about the history that leads to the present war in Iraq. So, here is a very short recounting. The details given here have been reported by many reputable news sources. There seems to be no disagreement about these facts.
All the actions by the U.S. government mentioned here were largely hidden from U.S. citizens. United States citizens paid the bill, but were mostly unaware of what their government was doing. Even though the U.S. government is presently at war with Iraq, only a small percentage of Americans can find Iraq on a map. It is said that a high percentage support the U.S. government's war in Iraq, but this is a blind kind of support that does not mean that there is comprehension.
Thread 1, Iran: Hidden elements of the U.S. government overthrew a democratically elected president of Iran (Mossadegh) because he wanted to reduce the profits of U.S. and British oil companies doing business in Iran. The U.S. government supported a very weak man, the Shah of Iran, who became very brutal toward his own citizens. Eventually, people in Iraq overthrew the Shah. The U.S. government's actions de-stabilized the country and encouraged the violence to come.
People in Iran began supporting terrorism against the United States, in retaliaton for hidden U.S. government interference with the Iranian government.
To counteract Iranian support of violence against the U.S., the U.S. goverment began supporting and encouraging Iraq in a war against Iran. This was very profitable for U.S. weapons manufacturers. Weapons manufacturers in the U.S. were delivering weapons to Iraq under long-term contracts up until the same month as the U.S. began war on Iraq the first time.
April Glaspie, US Ambassador to Iraq, encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. She said,
"I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." [my emphasis]
She also said, "I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. [my emphasis]
Here is a complete transcript of the meeting [montclair.edu] between the U.S. ambassador and Saddam Hussein. (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspi e.html)
Ambassador Glaspie acted on instructions from Secretary of State James Baker [infoplease.com], as she said. Later, she denied knowing that she was encouraging war. (Mr. Baker is a friend of George Bush and was later White House Chief of Staff.)
It is not known why the U.S. government would support Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. However, in the meeting mentioned above, April Glaspie said, "We have many Americans who would like to see the price [of oil] go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states."
The fortune of George H. W. Bush was heavily dependent on oil profits, and Texas is an oil-producing state. If the U.S. government is successful at gaining control of Iraq, profits for some companies in the U.S. will increase enormously because Iraqi oil will be sold directly to U.S. companies, rather than to Turkish companies, as it is now.
Thread #2, Afghanistan: There is a huge amount of oil in one of the countries inland from Afghanistan. However, the only good way to get the oil to people who would buy it is to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. The Soviets wanted to get
Re:A short history of how the U.S. got into this m (Score:5, Insightful)
I wont go into details here, I will allow one to read the material themselves. You can also watch the video as PBS online is currently hosting a story frontline did about the mess.
In brief:
The Project for the New American Century [newamericancentury.org] is a DC based think tank that has imagined a world under complete US military and economic domination (or "freedom" as it were). They have fiddled with and written documents concerning a post cold war world where the USA has become the Worlds Only Superpower and what that means from a Strategic viewpoint.
In the early days, Paul Wolfowitz produced a document that detailed the expansion of the American empire that seemed too radical at the time and was cleaned up and rewritten and stowed away. Over time, and through the most recent Coup by this incredibly radical group of men, this updated document, with the help of the PNAC, became the National Security Strategy Of the United States [whitehouse.gov]. Most chilling about this turn of eventls and policy is the new found policy of "pre-emption". Which I think we are seeing now in the creation of the 51st state [nytimes.com].
Also chilling (to me anyway) is the fact that this is the "official story", the one being reported by the obviously biased media.
Anyway.. some more links..
CBC.ca's [www.cbc.ca] take.
More Canadian Insight [thestar.com]
The Frontline Special [pbs.org]
Re:A short history of how the U.S. got into this m (Score:3, Insightful)
You people are full of shit...
Re:A short history of how the U.S. got into this m (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL. Yeah, just like temporary military rule turned Japan into the 51st state. Oops, that makes Iraq the 52nd state. Oh yeah, I forgot, we also conqured Afghanistan. That makes Iraq the 53rd state. Wait a minute, I forgot South Korea. Iraq is what, the 54 state? 55th? 56th?
You can certainly be opposed to the war, but assuming the US does in fact win the war then what would you suggest they do differently than described in the NY times article? I
Al-Jazeera changes DNS and backbone providers (Score:3, Insightful)
Al-Jazeera has changed DNS providers. Their "whois" data changed in the last update. Datapipe and Nav-Link are out, MyDomain is in. Four different DNS servers are listed, in different netblocks.
They've also switched to the Telia backbone. Telia is Scandanavia's largest backbone carrier, and is headquartered in Sweden.
It looks like they're getting the connectivity problem fixed. They're still on overload, with frequent "connection refused" messages, but sometimes you can get through.
Say what you want about Canadians... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/
http://www.canada.com/national/features/iraq/
http://iraq.ctv.ca/
Pretty well balanced sites IMHO.
Re:How did this one sneak in? FP =P (Score:2)
I went looking at the mail Al Jazeera web page looking for english information a few weeks ago( I don't speak any other language>, but I didn't see any link to this site. I don't know if its new, or they just don't link there from their Arabic language pages.
I can't find a google cache of it anyway, I hope it comes back up soon.
use P2P (Score:3, Informative)
BTW, we've all heard claims that P2P networks are only used to steal music, movies, etc. This is about the first good example of P2P being used for a valid cause -
Re:use P2P (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Excercising the rights that generations have fought and died to protect is unpatriotic. John Ashcroft says so.
Re:Unfortunate timing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember that Al Jazeera is independent, they don't just broadcast what the government wants to broadcast.
For some information from inside baghdad, try this blog. Of course, there is nothing to prove it is really from why they say they are, but there is no reason to believe it anyway.
Do you mean... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Do you mean... (Score:3, Informative)
There is a difference between
http://dearraed.blogspot.com/
and
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
the latter is the original, and the former is a mirror. The latest entry on the latter is a test message, and doesn't show on the former. Its also a few days old.
I hope the guy (or girl) is alright. There is news this morning that a bomb hit a market, killing 14 civilians. No definite answer as to which side fired it, but I hope no one else gets hurt or killed.
Re:Do you mean... (Score:3, Informative)
(Go ahead and try and cut-and-paste that link. You should arrive at Slashdot.)
That link becomes this [1109654166] after going through Slashcode. slash_dot.org becomes slashdot.org.
Go ahead - try it. Paste:
Re:Unfortunate timing... (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunate timing... (Score:3, Funny)
Then again, what media is?
Re:Unfortunate timing... (Score:2)
Re:No Post is Too Late: Send the Iraqis to Allah (Score:3, Interesting)
Most news organizations distort news to increase its appeal. Ever watch local TV "news at 10?" For the sake of increased local appeal, they always start bellowing "the LOCAL connection to the major news story", a connection that's flimsy or meaningless half the time.
There is no nobility in commercial journalism. The only difference between the New York Times and the Weekly World News is th
Re:No Post is Too Late: Send the Iraqis to Allah (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to Western news organizations like CNN, which go out of their way to be [snort] objective and cover all sides of an issue?
Get real. You want unbiased content, go to Google News [google.com], and when something comes up between, say, the French and the Brits, read about it from both a French and Brit news source. Same goes for Pakistan/India, Israel/Palestine, and US/just about anyone else.
Re:No Post is Too Late: Send the Iraqis to Allah (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to be forgetting the only reason the weapons inspectors were back in the country at all was because of the US. And as for "weakening his position", that's highly a matter of conjecture.
The Iraqi people may well have eventually overthrown Hussein (or one of his descendants), but how many innocent peo