Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Networking Security IT

Zimbabwe Gov't Websites Hit By Pro-WikiLeaks DDoS Attack 115

Posted by Soulskill
from the anonymous-abroad dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Pro-WikiLeaks hacktivists have struck a blow against the-powers-that-be in Zimbabwe, bringing down three government websites through distributed denial-of-service attacks. The attacks appear to be in support of newspapers who published secret cables in the ongoing WikiLeaks saga, to the annoyance of the country's leadership. Grace Mugabe, wife of Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe, was recently reported to be suing a newspaper for $15 million after it published a WikiLeaks cable that claimed she has benefited from illegal diamond trading. The Zimbabwe government's online portal at www.gta.gov.zw and the official ZANU-PF website continue to be offline, and the Finance Ministry's website now displays a message saying it is under maintenance."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Zimbabwe Gov't Websites Hit By Pro-WikiLeaks DDoS Attack

Comments Filter:
  • I love how Anonymous thinks they are effecting social change by "annoying" Zimbabwe's leaders. These 4channers will get bored, the website will go back up, and life will go on as usual in Zimbabwe.

    • Re:Hahaha (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Charliemopps (1157495) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @11:09AM (#34730352)
      Anything done that "annoys" Zimbabwe's leaders is well worth the effort in my opinion.
      • Re:Hahaha (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Concerned Onlooker (473481) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @12:16PM (#34730738) Homepage Journal

        I almost agree with you. However, when you "annoy" someone using illegal/unethical means you kind of lose the high ground. Just because it is a "good" cause doesn't mean one should abandon one's principles. Just look at the Bush administration and torture.

        Besides, it is a tactic that is non-lasting. Real change takes real work and time. But I think most people would rather wait until the situation is out of control and then take drastic action rather than do the hard day-to-day work of keeping freedoms alive.

        • by dasdrewid (653176)
          On the other hand, I never would have read about the Grace Mugabe's involvement in illegal diamond trading had Anonymous not DDoSed the various Zimbabwe government sites and gotten in the news (well, /.) for it. The DDoS is not long-lasting, but the information spread because of the uproar is. I'm still unsure how I feel about Anonymous and the DDoS attacks, but I know exactly how I feel about diamond trading (frankly, I'm not a fan of the legal stuff, either...) and now I know better to whom to apply those
      • by nyatty (1869046)
        I think its a simple type of attack and exposes weak security of Zimbabwe.
        • If you can call not withstanding a DDOS attack from an angry mob of 15 year olds weak security, i don't know. It's like saying a bank has weak security because the glass windows in the entrance break when people are throwing stones at them form the street.
      • by RichiH (749257)

        > Anything done that "annoys" Zimbabwe's leaders is well worth the effort in my opinion.

        Yes, especially if you want to give Mugabe _more_ reasons to kick out the guy who won but wasn't allowed to win. The alliance over there is brittle enough, handing Mugabe more "proof" that the other side is evil is beyond stupid and will most likely help cost real people their lives. As in boom, dead. Way to go.

    • If various sites associated with Zanu-PF, such as the Herald could be hacked to republish the allegedly libelous cable:

      2. (C) On November 6, poloff met with Andrew Cranswick, the
      CEO of African Consolidated Resources (ACR), the
      publicly-traded British firm that had its Chiadzwa diamond
      claim in the Marange district of Manicaland seized by the
      government parastatal Minerals Marketing Corporation of
      Zimbabwe (MMCZ) in 2006 (reftel). According to Cranswick,
      there is a small group of high-ranking Zimbabwean officials
      who have been extracting tremendous diamond profits from
      Chiadzwa. Cranswick said that RBZ Governor Gideon Gono,
      Grace Mugabe, wife of President Robert Mugabe, Vice President
      Joyce Mujuru, Mines and Mining Development Minister Amos
      Midzi, General Constantine Chiwenga and wife Jocelyn, CIO
      Director Happyton Bonyongwe, Manicaland Governor Chris
      Mushowe, and several white Zimbabweans, including Ken Sharpe,
      Greg Scott, and Hendrik O,Neill, are all involved in the
      Marange diamond trade.

      source [wikileaks.ch], then some good might come out of this. But DDOS is such a blunt instrument.

  • by sethstorm (512897) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @10:44AM (#34730250) Homepage

    Grace Mugabe, wife of Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe, was recently reported to be suing a newspaper for $15 million

    Which by the time it gets over with, will be worth a few cents if in the Zimbabwe currency.

    • That why she sues in Dollars. With every nanosecond they keep the trial hanging, the sum goes up and up in their local currency.

      • by Dogtanian (588974)

        That why she sues in Dollars. With every nanosecond they keep the trial hanging, the sum goes up and up in their local currency.

        Not if she was suing in Zimbabwean Dollars [wikipedia.org], dumbass. And how do you know she *was* suing in (non-local) "Dollars" anyway?

        • by thaig (415462)

          Because Zimbabwe is "dollarised" already - we use the US dollar because we couldn't control our own currency. I have a 500 billion Zim dollar note that is more valuable as toilet paper. That's why it's obvious that it is USD 15 million,.

    • by donutface (847957)
      The Zimbabwean dollar officially died over a year ago. They all use USD/EUR now
      • by the linux geek (799780) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @11:28AM (#34730450)
        Not *quite* dead, just comatose. If I recall, they said they'd bring it back if economic growth gets to a certain point, and until then would only use foreign currency to minimize inflation.
        • by donutface (847957)
          Thanks for the information I thought otherwise. Theyre pretty expensive on Ebay considering their actual value. When I ordered 100 trillion zim dollars for 5 euro, I was convinced it was fake. But no the country is just in so much crap that they can't even watermark their newer currency.
          • by hedwards (940851)
            It was a bit of a laugh before they discontinued it. It was illegal to take the currency out of the country.

            Probably one of the most pointless laws ever created. Sure you could take the currency out of the country, but by the time you got back it would be worth a few cents on the million of what it was when you left. Even for short periods of time you were better off just giving it away at the airport as it wasn't going to be worth anything the next time you came back.
  • So, she's suing the paper for an amount that's a little over 0.36% of the countries GDP, which, by the way, works out to about $100 per capita in 2009 dollars, according to the CIA World Fact Book. The Mugabes are a pair of the most despicable people on the planet and why they're allowed to stay in charge, probably out of some fear of removing them looking like "white colonial oppression," is shameful.

    • Just to clarify, the GDP of Zimbabwe works out to $100/per capita, not the $15,000,000 target of the suit.

    • by peragrin (659227)

      When the USA charges in to change a government people scream and shout and say the the USA is imperliaistic and being mean. When the USA doesn't invade they are looked at with disdain for not helping out those who need it.

      You can't have it both ways, however no matter what the USA does it is wrong.

      • Re:$15,0000,000 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Grygus (1143095) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @11:23AM (#34730428)

        When the USA charges in to change a government people scream and shout and say the the USA is imperliaistic and being mean. When the USA doesn't invade they are looked at with disdain for not helping out those who need it.

        You can't have it both ways, however no matter what the USA does it is wrong.

        It might help if the US got some sort of international support and helped the countries who most people believed needed helping, instead of unilaterally invading the ones with the most natural resources. Just saying.

        • by magarity (164372)

          It might help if the US got some sort of international support and helped the countries who most people believed needed helping, instead of unilaterally invading the ones with the most natural resources. Just saying.

          When was the last time the US unilaterally invaded a country? Granada?

          • by brusk (135896)
            The US has never invaded mainland Spain, to my knowledge. It did invade Granada in 1983, but the invasion of Panama in 1989 is more recent.
            • by brusk (135896)
              I meant Grenada, of course. Hartman's Law strikes again.
            • The invasion of Grenada wasn't unilateral; it was requested by, and involved forces from, a number of Caribbean states. Panama, on the other hand, was - and was, to the best of my knowledge, the last occurrence of a unilateral invasion by the US.
          • by hedwards (940851)
            Technically speaking it's been at last a century. But only because the Australians send troops whenever we go in, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea.

            OTOH, if you mean without the approval of the UN or a coalition of governments that answer is rather recent.
            • by c6gunner (950153)

              OTOH, if you mean without the approval of the UN or a coalition of governments that answer is rather recent.

              So ... Panama? Or were you thinking of something else?

          • When was the last time the US unilaterally invaded a country? Granada?
            The US never invades unilaterally, they call their "allies" and tell them they are invading as well.
            What was that famous Dubya quote? "Either yer with us or agin us"?
        • Just saying.

          Do not ever use this phrase, you just completely invalidated what you had just said. By using this phrase, you are saying that you were "just saying" what you had just said and that, therefore, what you had just said was just words, i.e. gibberish.
          /rant

        • It might help if the US got some sort of international support and helped the countries who most people believed needed helping, instead of unilaterally invading the ones with the most natural resources.

          Yeah.....as we all know South Korea, South Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Grenada and Panama are just swimming in natural resources vital to AmeriKKKa's military-industrial complex.

          • Re:$15,0000,000 (Score:5, Interesting)

            by rjhubs (929158) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @12:45PM (#34730950)
            President Eisenhower's quote for why we aided the French in their war with Vietnam:

            "Now let us assume that we lose Indochina. If Indochina goes, several things happen right away. The Malayan peninsula, the last little bit of the end hanging on down there, would be scarcely defensible--and tin and tungsten that we so greatly value from that area would cease coming ... So, when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, we are not voting for a giveaway program. We are voting for the cheapest way that we can to prevent the occurrence of something that would be of the most terrible significance for the United States of America--our security, our power and ability to get certain things we need from the riches of the Indonesian territory, and from southeast Asia." - Quote from the Pentagon Papers

            So what were you trying to say again?
            • Re:$15,0000,000 (Score:5, Informative)

              by Bob Cat - NYMPHS (313647) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @02:48PM (#34731834) Homepage

              Your 'quote' is bogus. It is a heavily edited version of a speech Ike gave in public in 1953, when all of Eastern Europe was occupied by the USSR. You edited it to change the meaning entirely. This was a speech about how to keep the free world free, not about metals.

              http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,858151,00.html [time.com]

              It was included in one edition of the Pentagon Papers but was never secret.

              http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/ps7.htm [mtholyoke.edu]

              Here's the part you deliberately left out:

              "But all India would be outflanked. Burma would certainly, in its weakened condition, be no defense. Now, India is surrounded on that side by the Communist empire. Iran on its left is in a weakened condition. I believe I read in the paper this morning that Mossadegh's move toward getting rid of his parliament has been supported and of course he was in that move supported by the Tudeh, which is the Communist Party of Iran. All of that weakening position around there is very ominous for the United States, because finally if we lost all that, how would the free world hold the rich empire of Indonesia? So you see, somewhere along the line, this must be blocked. It must be blocked now. That is what the French are doing."

              You're one of those revisionists who claim the Cold War never happened, tight? Or it was all America's fault?
              Communism killed around 100 million people in the 20th century. There's books about it, read one.

              • by rjhubs (929158)
                I left it out because the meaning is still the same. Yes, I think everyone is well aware of the effect Domino Theory had on shaping U.S. actions at the time. We need to stop the spread of communism. But if you believe the primary reason for our intervention in the area was for the benefit of the locals, it is a naive belief at best.

                The last paragraph in your 2nd link is perfectly clear. Eisenhower's conclusion curiously fails to mention anything about helping the people, but rather mentions the need f
              • Your 'quote' is bogus.

                The best thing about slashdot is that you know 80% of the posts make up 20% of their content.

          • by c6gunner (950153)

            Not sure about the Dominican republic, but Korea, Vietnam, and Grenada weren't "unilateral". Not disagreeing with your point, but if you're going to count non-unilateral engagements, then the list grows far, FAR larger. People seem to forget that the vast majority of US military conflicts have been at the behest or with the cooperation of the UN and/or other nations.

        • It might help if the US got some sort of international support and helped the countries who most people believed needed helping, instead of unilaterally invading the ones with the most natural resources. Just saying.

          I'm not sure if it was strictly "unilateral", but your point is still very valid. In fact, here in Africa a typical response to hearing about the US invasions in the middle east was "why aren't they liberating Zimbabwe instead, where the locals actually want to be liberated?".

        • What difference does that make, The effective UN forces are 60% American, 15% British, 10% Canadian, 10% Australian and the rest of the world fills in the rest. No matter what happens it looks like an American operation because almost everybody speaks english.

        • It might help if the US got some sort of international support and helped the countries who most people believed needed helping, instead of unilaterally invading the ones with the most natural resources. Just saying.

          Especially given the existing presence of the Chinese military (allegedly here 1943'28.99"S 3225'33.06"E) .... though I'd be surprised if actual "help" ever arrives - far too much money just in the blood diamonds, and far too many "very" powerful players.

          I'd be a little cautious about buying anything Andrew Cranswick sold me without checking carefully first, especially if it's a cattle station (Moola Bulla) - equally I'd consider giving him a some credit when he denies that he pointed at Ernest "Deadly" Bl

      • by copponex (13876)

        The United States government has only once invaded a nation to protect their sovereignty since WWII. And according to many sources, the USG allowed Iraq to invade Kuwait in order provide a pretext for war to balance power between Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia after the end of the Iran-Iraq War (which we helped Iraq wage.)

        The USG has never invaded a country solely to support a democracy.

        • by peragrin (659227)

          let me guess those same sources say the USA government also planned 911, and has anti gravity engines too.

          When the USA participates with other governments they can be told no not to go ahead. Which is what happened to germany for WW II Germany kept pushing and no one did anything until after it was too late. Iraq kept pushing and no one would allow them to be stopped before they invaded kuwait.

          If you understand the simple fact that no government can be anything but reactionary to events things make a lot

          • by hedwards (940851)
            That's not true. The Russians did a hell of a lot, and were it not for their sacrifices it's not likely that the US would've been able to take down Germany.
            • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

              That's not true. The Russians did a hell of a lot, and were it not for their sacrifices it's not likely that the US would've been able to take down Germany.

              Unlikely. No matter what else happened, along about August of 1945, Berlin would've found itself on the short list for one of the three A-bombs available.

              It must be noted that while the Soviets killed a lot of German soldiers, very little of what went on on the Eastern Front had much strategic significance - it didn't prevent the Germans from making mo

              • by dbIII (701233)
                So those Russians in Berlin at the end of the war were purely imaginary?
                It can be taken furthur. As I see it, without Russian involvement the USA would have seen an attack on Germany as entering an unwinnable war and Japan wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbour if they had to worry about the entire Russian military.
                • So those Russians in Berlin at the end of the war were purely imaginary?

                  Never forget that Eisenhower ordered his men to leave Berlin to the Russians. Note that this decision came after asking General Bradley to estimate the casualties required to take Berlin. Bradley's answer was quit close, by the by, to the actual Soviet losses.

                  It can be taken furthur. As I see it, without Russian involvement the USA would have seen an attack on Germany as entering an unwinnable war and Japan wouldn't have attacked Pea

            • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

              by c6gunner (950153)

              Nonsense - if Russia hadn't gotten involved, the war would have lasted a bit longer, and the first nuke would have detonated over Berlin. Either way, the allies would have come out on top. Russia contributed a great deal - and sacrificed and suffered more than any other nation - but the idea that the war could not have been won without them is pure fiction.

              • by kdemetter (965669)

                Sorry , but that is hard to say. Change one factor in history and everything might change.

                Remember that Germany was also working on an atom bomb.
                I also recall that Einstein played a certain role in it ( by writing a letter or at least by signing a letter , informing the president that Germany was building an atom bomb ) , which lead to the US deciding to build the bomb sooner.

                What do you think would have happened if Einstein didn't make it the US ?
                What would have happend if Germany was able to create the at

                • by c6gunner (950153)

                  What do you think would have happened if Einstein didn't make it the US ?

                  Leo Szilard would have found some other famous scientist to sign his name to the letter.

                  What would have happend if Germany was able to create the atom bomb , and use it before the US could ?

                  What would have happened if pink unicorns farted fallout?

                  You don't get to posit random scenarios and claim that they somehow disprove what I said. There's no link between Russian involvement in WW2 and German research into atomic weapons.

                  • by kdemetter (965669)

                    You don't get to posit random scenarios and claim that they somehow disprove what I said. There's no link between Russian involvement in WW2 and German research into atomic weapons.

                    That's just it . I don't claim to disprove what you said. My claim is there is no way to be certain of that.

                    Just as there 'being no link between WW2 and German research into atomic weapons' , is only true because that is the history we know.
                    As i said , there is no telling what would happen if one thing changed.

                    So your view on what would have happened , is as valid as any.

                    • by c6gunner (950153)

                      That's just it . I don't claim to disprove what you said. My claim is there is no way to be certain of that. ...
                      So your view on what would have happened , is as valid as any.

                      That is, in a word, "retarded". You can use that reasoning to excuse just about anything. Certainty isn't required in order to have confidence in a conclusion, nor is the lack of certainty a reason to accept any random nonsense.

                      Creationists do this all the time with their "teach the controversy" bullshit, when they say things like "you can't be sure how all of evolution happened, therefor my magic-man with his talking snake is just as valid". It's asinine when they do it, and it's just as asinine here.

                    • by kdemetter (965669)

                      So you don't like it when people say that they don't know something , rather than agreeing with you ?

                      That is the only thing i'm saying : i don't know what will happen , and i don't think you know either.

                      That's actually the opposite of creationists : they claim to know something , even though it can't be proven ( a bit like what you are doing )

                      I'm open to any hypothesis , but i don't take any of them to be 'true' just because you say so.

            • by mjwalshe (1680392)
              they would have glassed the Ruhr industrial heartland - that is what the Manhattan project was aiming at.
          • by copponex (13876)

            let me guess those same sources say the USA government also planned 911, and has anti gravity engines too.

            Red herrings are absolutely delicious.

            If you understand the simple fact that no government can be anything but reactionary to events things make a lot more sense.

            And if you understand that the United States is motivated by the exact same values as any other empire - hegemony and maintaining geopolitical stability - everything makes sense.

            You can't prevent another 9/11 you can make it harder to do so, but you really can't prevent it.

            Total bullshit. Al Qaeda targeted the United States because of our military presence in the middle east. If we hadn't been manipulating governments in the middle east since we divided up the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI, 9/11 would have never happened.

            • by peragrin (659227)

              So when i say it it becomes a red Herring but when you say it it is the truth?

              The USA had very little to do with the dividing up of the Ottoman empire. The British had their colonies there and the USA mostly stayed out of it. We fought some in Egypt and northern Africa, but those battles of WW II were fought by those other than the USA.

              Most people in the Middle east including many Israelis have long forgotten why they continue to fight. My personal suggestion is to nuke Jerusalem and be do

      • Because US foreign policy is limited to the two modes "Invasion" and "Apathy"?

    • by RichiH (749257)

      They are "allowed" to stay by a ruthless military force which follows Mugabe to the death:

      * Single soldiers not following orders by not fleeing will be dealt with in a very public manner.
      * The military gets benefits from the status quo.
      * The military will face the anger of the people once the status quo is gone.

      The "white colonial oppression" has always been a stick figure and from what I read, most people in Zimbabwe knew or learned this ages ago.

  • by AndGodSed (968378) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @10:51AM (#34730266) Homepage Journal

    This is one of those times where I feel a sense of justification for the anonymous attacks. Mugabe should be run out of office sooner than later.

    Problem is, this kind of attack against his governments sites will have one effect: It will bolster his insane claims of overseas meddling causing his countries problems. It is a lie, Mugabe is the no1 cause for the problems Zim is having now, but all anonymous have done is lend credibility to his claims of overseas "agents" (yes he has used that term) causing trouble in Zimbabwe.

    This will have the effect that his supporter base will grow, and lend him greater power.

    • by openfrog (897716) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @11:11AM (#34730372)

      This is one of those times where I feel a sense of justification for the anonymous attacks. Mugabe should be run out of office sooner than later.

      Problem is, this kind of attack against his governments sites will have one effect: It will bolster his insane claims of overseas meddling causing his countries problems. It is a lie, Mugabe is the no1 cause for the problems Zim is having now, but all anonymous have done is lend credibility to his claims of overseas "agents" (yes he has used that term) causing trouble in Zimbabwe.

      This will have the effect that his supporter base will grow, and lend him greater power.

      Spot on. Furthermore, responsible reporting of these events would avoid speculating on the source for these attacks, eg.: "Hit by Pro-WikiLeaks DDoS attacks". It will, or it already is, all too easy for a tyrant to justify repression by perpetrating an attack on his own servers, just like the Reichstag fire, except that you don't need to really burn the parliamant to justify what will follow but just cause yourself a minor annoyance and then cry murder.

      This Anonymous thing, if it is done by teenagers, is the stupidest thing ever, and if done by psy-ops, quite clever, as journalists seem to continue to report this unaware.

      • by Pstrobus (149491)

        This Anonymous thing, if it is done by teenagers, is the stupidest thing ever, and if done by psy-ops, quite clever

        My vote is teenagers, the stupid to signal ratio is too high for psy-ops. Besides Mugabe prefers direct action (gukurahundi, 2008 election violence) and seems to appreciate the simplicity of "one person who annoys me, one bullet." False flagging in order to proclaim that "Tha Foreigners" are out to get Zim is too complex and much less useful, he can just point to Tsvangirai's meeting with western folks if he wants to hype "The Enemies are out to get us."

        as journalists seem to continue to report this unaware

        I assume you mean the assumption that this is 1) by an

        • by openfrog (897716)

          My vote is teenagers, the stupid to signal ratio is too high for psy-ops.

          as journalists seem to continue to report this unaware

          I assume you mean the assumption that this is 1) by anonymous 2) related to WikiLeaks, correct?

          You write "my vote". Indeed, this is my point: we can only speculate on the source of these attacks. And if teenagers, manipulated or not? Do you assume, or vote, for a public opinion shaping event on the scale of WikiLeaks and the sudden irruption of Anonymous on the story not to be the concern of intelligence agencies with a view on policy shaping?

          Whoever was at the beginning of Anonymous, there is absolutely no way to verify the source of a given attack. As a consequence, responsible journalists should s

    • by jasonditz (597385)

      I've had people make the same argument to me against the WikiLeaks leaks in general, except with the Obama regime instead of the Mugabe one.

      That embarrassing a corrupt government is going to lead to a crackdown is no real excuse not to embarrass them, as they're going to find an excuse to crack down either way.

      • by AndGodSed (968378)

        You are right - They will find an excuse to crack down.

        The question is: Why give them one? Why aid them by handing them an excuse?

        And as for embarrassment, I think it is hardly embarrassing to have your government site taken offline, especially one that draws as little traffic as this one - Its alexa ranking is 2,460,718! My blog gets roughly ten times the traffic that they do according to alexa!

        If they wanted to disrupt something worthwhile they could have gone after a telecommunications server - surely if

  • Zimbabwe's infrastructure is probably minimal and informational in nature. A few Linux boxes running a web server. Certainly makes an easier target than Amazon, Paypal etc. where Anon's boasted how it was going to take it down and managed to cause minimal disruption.
  • by Ant P. (974313) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @11:10AM (#34730360) Homepage

    Ping flood it from two 56k lines instead of just the one?

    • Or figure out the phone number of their dial-up line to South Africa and call it repeatedly - until they figure out how to disable call waiting.

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      No. They run along hitting the string between two cans.

  • Zim doesn't even qualify as a Banana Republic.
  • by drooling-dog (189103) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @12:49PM (#34730984)

    ...that these attacks "in support of Wikileaks" are what they are represented to be? Or is it possible that at least some of them could be false flag attacks designed to make the case later that breaching government secrecy is somehow tantamount to terrorism? Just asking... I really have no idea, but neither do I expect things always to be what they appear.

    • by poity (465672)
      Who's to say wikileaks itself isn't a false flag operation by that thought process? When you go down that road of paranoia, there's no end to what COULD BE.
      • You shouldn't exclude any possibilities. It's all possible, just more or less unlikely. Calling it paranoia and stop asking questions is ignorant and self deceiving. But calling it very unlikely and not interesting enough to investigate is fine.

    • by Duradin (1261418)

      I think all these questions about the attacks in support of Wikileaks being a false flag operation are just a false flag operation to make it look more plausible that they are a false flag operation.

      It's conspiracies and useful idiots all the way down.

      Or people doing it for the lulz.

  • Plain and simple.

"The Mets were great in 'sixty eight, The Cards were fine in 'sixty nine, But the Cubs will be heavenly in nineteen and seventy." -- Ernie Banks

Working...