Falun Gong Hacks Chinese Satellite 584
maetenloch writes: "Last week Falun Gong hackers in China were able to briefly take over the Sinosat-1 satellite and broadcast a banner for several minutes on all channels of China Central Television. This was apparently repeated several time on different channels on Sunday but so far the Chinese government has imposed a news blackout on the incident. However thanks to the Internet and the millions of witnesses, word has leaked out. Surprisingly, security on satellites can be very weak - often transponders are left on when not active and will continue to rebroadcast whatever is beamed at them. It's believed that Falun Gong used a 3 meter dish antenna mounted on a vehicle to overpower the government's uplink signal. This is not the only time that satellite signals have been hacked - there was the famous 'Captain Midnight' incident in 1986 and it's believed that Iraq has been attacking Kurdish satellite tv channels for several years. Hackers have even (discreetly) made use of the U.S. Navy's FleetSatCom satellites."
Disregard the politics for a second (Score:4, Interesting)
Moments like this, along with the Anthrax outbreak last year, are beginning to define socio-political conflict in the 21st Century.
Re:Disregard the politics for a second (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is, though -- brute force is still very effective at neutralizing dissent, even if the dissenters are canny at manipulating electronic media content and delivery systems.
But yeah, it does seem as though traditional control mechanisms are slipping a bit.
Captain Midnight (Score:2)
Stirring a Hornet's nest (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't why they would want to do this. This is hardly a good public relations move. Smells like a childish prank by some teenagers.
No doubt the most of the Falun Gonger's are mortified by now.
Re:Stirring a Hornet's nest (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure why you threw in the "supposedly spiritual" comment - sounds alot like FUD. I don't agree with the Falun Gong's philosophy by any means, but theirs no room to or point in denying that they're a quasi-religious, spiritual movement.
"I don't why they would want to do this. This is hardly a good public relations move. Smells like a childish prank by some teenagers."
There is no such thing as bad publicity and in China, there is NO publicity. Most Chinese have no idea what the Falun Gong movement is, apart from what the government tells them, which usually are along the lines of "Falun Gong members eat their children." Seriously. Would you have been calling the civil rights activists childish when they tried to ride all white buses? Give me a break.
Re:Stirring a Hornet's nest (Score:2, Insightful)
They are not out to reform the Chinese government like the civil rights groups here in american have been. they are out to topple it. and if they do, millions upon millions will die -- starving to death -- because Falungong has no plan as to how to keep 1.3 billion people properly fed.
That's why it's "childish." It is an irresponsible proposal which, today, will only lead to more death.
Maybe it's insulting to equate "childish" with "irresponsible." But that's what the parent poster meant.
Re:Stirring a Hornet's nest (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stirring a Hornet's nest (Score:2, Interesting)
It is. See all the comments about the US's almost-elected leader, Dubya. In a time when the National Guard wasn't accepting any more applications, he managed to get accepted. He then supposedly didn't actually show up for most of it.
Any cite for this? Yes he served in the NG, lots of people did, but your claim here is completely unbacked by evidence.
And yes, he's pretty much thought of as a useless coward whose daddy bought him safety and runs him like a puppet now.
Oh. That must explain the 76% approval ratings. Face it, you want people to think like this, but the fact is that 0.76 * 285,000,000 Americans disagree with you completely.
Re:Stirring a Hornet's nest (Score:3, Insightful)
i don't think you understand approval ratings...
let me tell you about recent news.. on 9/11 we had this "terrorist" organization attack our world trade center buildings and pentagon. many people died.
american's are ignorant to world affairs. they think that we must be hated because we're on top. they are also largely ignorant to the functions of government.
this tragic event and the ignorance (and arrogance) of the american people cause them to need hand-holding. bush holds hands. he's got some good rhetoric-masters writing his speaches. they throw in the words the american population wants to hear.
americans like tangible things. bumbs being dropped. arabs being profiled. military beefing up. we can see it happening.
and, because of our ignorance (and arrogance) we refuse to think of how our foreign policy may be making us look to all these so-called terrorists.
bombing iraq for 10 years? who cares!
supporting israel no matter what they do? who cares?
not supporting international law (U.N.'s ICC)? who cares?
actively promoting scores of militants and authoritanians in the past because they'd bow to our will? who cares!
so... 76% of american's (call it a float variable "whocares") are of the ignorant type. some amount (call it a float variable "kiddies") just don't want to support the guy who's in charge. and whocares-kiddies=intelligent_americans_who_see_wh
so... that's what the 0.76 * 285,000,000 Americans disagree who with him completely means.
Re:Stirring a Hornet's nest (Score:5, Insightful)
i'll try to explain myself (though i'm still working on my communication skills, so please forgive me -- by the way -- i'm not from europe)
here's a note to keep this on topic.
china. keeps 1.3 billion people ticking. do they live fabulously self-indulgent lives? no. are they afflicted by this terrible amount of over population because Mao thought "more people more power?" yes. are they in any way communist? yes. are they in any way democratic? yes. are they in any way authoritarian? yes.
and we disagree with their existence. we feel that the chinese people should be able to choose whatever religion they want and have as many kids as they want. I disagree, for now at least.
when carter went to china and spoke to dengxiaoping he said, "the chinese people should be allowed to travel freely and come to america if they choose to."
deng replied: "how many million would you like."
we, the gov't of america or the american people, can criticize china all we want, but we have no alternative. we don't want 500 million more residents (just to make both countries have about 800 million) to have to take care of. if we want any of them we want the well educated ones who can help us eat more without gaining more weight. or help us not die from lung cancer (so we can smoke some more.) we don't, however, want the 800+million peasants.
but we still criticize the government in china for being to strict. well hell, they have to be. i'll give us more credit when we start offering viable sulutions. (not like the ones we've given to places like argentina where we took them under our wing, with a dictatorship, because they weren't communist. then, when they are having financial troubles, we may be the most prosperous nation in the world, but we don't help them. and 30% of our foreign aide goes to israel.)
so -- again to keep this on topic -- we support things like the falungong because they "promote freedom." but we don't think about keeping people alive. viable solutions. freedom or no freedom, a government's first responsibility is to keep it's people alive. (note: america -- we handed over some of our freedoms to stay alive during the great depression)
now to reply to your post.
btw, we supported the appeasement of hitler.
and iraq never attacked us. we attacked them because they were attacking another state.
but we don't attack israel when it attacks another state. curious.
the U.N.'s ICC (international criminal court) is evil because it may declare some of our leaders as war criminals. i think that's a good thing. we're all about democracy.. but when people want to pass judgement on us there's always a loophole where other people's opinions shouldn't hold weight.
and this is where the ignorance comes in. people don't understand the reason why terrorists would possibly attack us. i'm almost inclined to leave this open for you to respond to... but i can't stop typing.
but i've been around the world and i've seen why people hate us. they hate us because we attack belgrade (bombing them) with maps from 1992 (we were bombing them in 1999) and blew up the chinese embassy there. "collateral damage"
we kill 40 people trying to celebrate a wedding. "collateral damage."
let the ICC determine if there is a need for change in afghan bombing practices or if it was simply a tragic mistake? no! who would DARE think that they can determine whether what WE are doing is right or not.
i'd say that the U.N. was founded to do just that. determine if what other nations are doing is right or wrong. we're an exception?
bombing iraq for 10 years. who are we to say that iraq's government is bad?
if we want to have a bombing campaign, suggest it in the security counsil. that's what it's there for.
but no. we just bomb it. we're above the law.
that's the attitude people around the world see. that's why they hate us. if we'd just stop being like that.. maybe i wouldn't "have" to buy a gas mask for my child.
dalutong wrote:
bombing iraq for 10 years? who cares!
supporting israel no matter what they do? who cares?
not supporting international law (U.N.'s ICC)? who cares?
actively promoting scores of militants and authoritanians in the past because they'd bow to our will? who cares!
Re:Stirring a Hornet's nest (Score:4, Insightful)
patriotism shouldn't be about kicking people out of america. america is supposed to be the all-accepting nation. if i want to walk around saying i hate america all day with a picture of bush laying dead on my shirt then i should be allowed to. patriotism isn't about supporting the current leader. it's about supporting the system. i believe in the morals of this country. separation of church and state, freedom of speech, electing my gov't representatives.
but that's where the blindness comes in. when i'm told i should not practice my freedom of speech if i choose to. that's not patriotism on my accusers part.
when i hear "love it or leave it" when i say that i agree that "under god" in the pledge or "in god we trust" on the money conflicts with the constitution (which is NOT a matter of majority rules -- that's the part of the government that is supposed to be permanent)
when I didn't vote for bush yet somehow i have to approve of what he does? or even if i DID vote for bush and he pulls the stupid stunts he is not and i don't agree with him, i can't criticize him? I'm unpatriotic?
NO! my accusers are unpatriotic! THEY don't understand what american stands for! It DOESN'T stand for profiling arabs. it DOESN'T stand for kicking all "unpatriotic" people out of the nation. it stands for freedom -- and the people who are so blind that they think that the current social system is promoting american values... then they are "blindly patriotic"
after 9/11 bush came to visit my school. i didn't stand for him. i didn't clap.
i was taken out of the auditorium and yelled at by several in the administration.
that's blindly patriotic.
Re:Stirring a Hornet's nest (Score:2)
Re:Stirring a Hornet's nest (Score:2)
Except that cults (catholics/jews/falung gong) do not have the same indisputable arguments to make as Civil Rights Activists.
Really, to suggest so is a disservice to honest public discourse.
Re:Stirring a Hornet's nest (Score:2, Insightful)
Communism is hateful and about the worst thing on the planet. Falun Gong's actions were not "childish" or teenagerish. They were decent, moral, and an affirmation that not all of the Chinese race are blind slaves to Communism. And if a billion Chinese saw their message, then that is even better. Hopefully they will overthrow their dictatorship within the next decade and become a true democracy.
Re:Reagan haters (Score:2)
Clinton, though, was really best known for the strongest economy in our history. Yes, he made some (extremely) stupid personal decisions, but that doesn't really have much of a bearing on his decisions as president. Plenty of our famous "good" presidents have dallied, Clinton was just unlucky enough to get caught...
Re:Stirring a Hornet's nest (Score:2)
Department (Score:4, Funny)
They Should Have... (Score:5, Funny)
First they hack bandwidth... (Score:2, Funny)
Reminds me of that scene in Hackers (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Reminds me of that scene in Hackers (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Reminds me of that scene in Hackers (Score:2)
"Hey you commies, Meditate This!"
"Your mother wears Mao suits."
"The satellite is mightier than the tank."
(It's the best I can do until the caffeine kicks in...)
Re:Reminds me of that scene in Hackers (Score:2, Interesting)
they may be taiwanese or falungong members... but probably not mainlanders. (Why to I think this? I've been in the Chinese tech industry for almost a decade now and I don't think that many mainlanders would see a point to hacking a site and leaving that message. They just don't have the motivation. Also, as I do follow the news both here (US) and ther (China), I'd say that some falungong or taiwan crazies have more motivation (making China look like the backwards police state that everyone seems to want to believe) than the mainlanders do)
Re:Reminds me of that scene in Hackers (Score:5, Insightful)
All the idjits who whine about "1984" in the US aren't paying attention to the country where there's a good chance of it really happening.
-jon
At least they are straightforward about it (Score:5, Insightful)
The chinese openly admit to censorship, restrictions on individual rights, etc.
Here in the US, we are every bit as much a police state as china is, however we claim to be the freest place on earth. (richest sure, but the freedom is an illusion)
Here we curtail civil liberties in "defense of freedom". Here we have a working massive fingerprint database, and a credit database that says if you are a good person or not, which furthermore you cannot argue against.
Our government has huge monitoring systems which silently listen to communications all over the world combing for information.
We have a War department that is called "The Dept. of Defense" which has been waging nearly perpetual war for 50 years across the globe.
We have huge witchhunts for the enemy of the day "communists" "child molesters" "terrorists".
The scariest thing is that it all arises without rigid central control: we censor ourselves to further our careers.
The doublethink in the USA is getting pretty scary.
Re:At least they are straightforward about it (Score:2)
You're kidding---right? (Score:3, Insightful)
So do we--you've heard of the Constitution and the bill of rights, no? In the interest of protecting individual rights and freedoms, we repress other individual rights. Freedom is no illusion, it is a careful, careful balance. The difference is that I can go to court and challenge _any_ law that I perceive to be too restrictive, and I can win! It happens every day. Some might argue that the system's out of whack right now, but...
scariest thing is that it all arises without rigid central control
Exactly! It's brilliant! We control the extent to which our freedoms are suppressed, sometimes in the interest of safety, sometimes because of FUD, but always because we have chosen. And no doubt, the pendulum swings a little extreme one way, we see the error of our ways, and it swings back too far the other way. It's just human nature.
waging nearly perpetual war for 50 years
Rome went to war much longer--was it a police state? So did Britain--police state? You digress here, methinks.
BTW, I've been to some peaceful demonstrations, in our nation's capital and other places, and no tanks and soldiers have ever shown up, shot large numbers of peaceful demonstrators, and covered the numbers up. That kind of thing just can't happen here; part of the beauty of our system is that horrible things like Kent State can happen and be displayed by the media, to become a forum for the public to discuss for the next hundred years. How did the public discussion go in the People's Republic after that little incident in the Square? There are some bad trends in the US right now, but I do NOT think you can draw similarities between the States and China.
China can't keep all the news out. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:China can't keep all the news out. (Score:3, Interesting)
"Also, why can't they control the internet? They own all the infrastructure, the ISPs, the cable, everything. You're not very informed to think they just can't turn off whatever they want. They block all of geocities and angelfire, and often block cnn and other news sites when some issue that is sensitive to the government is happening. Don't underestimate what a determined dictatorship can accomplish, especially when they hold all of the cards."
Another point - why does it matter if the people aren't convinced that the CCP has the right to rule? The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) has all the guns, military, etc. and revolt is downright impossible.
Friends of Falun Gong (Score:5, Informative)
Friends of Falun Gong [fofg.org]
The Falun Gong take on the story is here:
Revealing Broadcasts Are Truly Serving the People-- From the Editors of FalunInfo.net: Falun Gong Practitioners Risk their Lives to Tell the Truth [fofg.org]
If you would like to help out the cause, there is a page about it here:
Become a Friend- Alleviate the Suffering, End the Injustice [fofg.org]
analogy (Score:2)
[hint for those who don't know what I mean: on a computer with a misconfig'd open proxy, this usually can be found by scanning for an open port 8080]
But are you SURE (Score:4, Funny)
Doubtful (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm inclined to think it was some other band of kiddiez that just wanted a good cover for their actions, like the "Hacked By Chinese" incidents from last year.
-----
Darwin is an evolutionary OS [cafepress.com]...
--
Apple hardware still too expensive for you? How about a raffle ticket? [macraffle.com]
am -- ssb (Score:2)
An AM signal is composed of two ssb signals (lower and upper sideband) and a carrier wave:
LSB | CW | USB
It is trivial that using an SSB receiver you will be able to hear an AM signal. The only difference is that you may only listen to one sideband at a time.
Similarly, FM and SSB (Score:2)
What is Falun Gong? (Score:2)
Re:What is Falun Gong? (Score:5, Informative)
What is Falun Gong [fofg.org]
Falun Gong is basically similar to traditional Chinese religions such as Buddhism and Taoism, and centers on meditation as a means of physical and spiritual self-improvement.
It began as an exercise society, which tried to get official status with the government. When the government refused the group staged a mass, peaceful demonstration, hoping to change the minds of the government.
This was a failure, and the government decided to eradicate the group by any means necessary. The techniques include murder, torture and heavy propaganda on the state run TV. The main fear of the government is that before the government decided it was a threat the group had gained a lot of members, including some people who were also communist party members.
Re:What is Falun Gong? (Score:4, Insightful)
"scientology is basically similar to traditional western beleifs like Christianity, and centers on meditation as a means of physical and spiritual self-improvement."
Re:What is Falun Gong? (Score:2)
Not Suprised (Score:5, Interesting)
The only way you could possibly hurt a military satellite is to blast it with power... However once that's done, controlers in the NOC see it.. Null rx, and send the lat and long if the source of the spike on to whoever needs to be notified (Falcon AFB for Air Force and Army). Spikes are the only cheap and effective way of hacking, however our SSMA communications defeats that easily.. Not that much of SATCOM is SSMA, but the really important shit is.
For a truly effective hack, you'd have to jam 2 different UHF rxers (backup and primary command rxers) as well as the regular comms channels.. but with someone putting out that much power, it'd be pretty easy to find without the use of the satty anyway.
Just my 2 cents.
Re:Not Suprised (Score:3, Funny)
Who says the Falun Gong did it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Otherwise, it seems totally out of character for what is largely a peaceful group, and also one that doesn't have much in the way of financial resources. In a country where several years' worth of paychecks *may* be enough to buy you a car, it's not something you'd easily risk by pulling a stunt like this.
I'm sorry, but my BS-o-meter is registering pretty high on this one. It sounds suspiciously to me like a way for the Chinese government to legitimize their qualms with the group.
Forget something? (Score:2)
Re:Forget something? (Score:2)
And I wasn't trying to imply that this thing wasn't peaceful, so much as I've just never read any news about Falun Gong that didn't have to do with some new incident of persecution by the Chinese government.
Bah! (Score:3, Funny)
Bah!
I saw that broadcast. All it was was a couple of gay asian guys wearing way too much make up shouting "Hack the Planet!".
You must be shot. (Score:2)
Extremely counter-productive for Fa Lun Gong (Score:3, Insightful)
For the Chinese man on the street, who might not sympathize with Fa Lun Gong (many that I know don't), an act like this marks them as trouble-makers who have clearly gone beyond passive resistance.
For the Chinese government, this incident allows them to go to the American government and claim that Fa Lun Gong is a bunch of religious cyber-terrorists. An excuse to crack down on illicit internet-cafes, rights of religious freedoms (they can claim that religion preaches terrorism), and hackers in general (ala US-styled counter-cyber-terrorism proposals).
For American policy makers, this seems similar to Al-Qaeda cyber-terrorism scenarios, where a telecom disruption might occur concurrently with a physical attack, thus disrupting the C4 capabilities of the emergency support teams.
Get real. This isn't like in "Hackers" or "Johny Mnemonic" where the good guy hackers hack TV to expose The Man.
Patiwat Panurach
patiwat@sloan.mit.edu
Old hat (Score:2, Insightful)
Comparing them to Al-Qaeda is ridiculous.
What a waste of effort... (Score:2, Funny)
Anybody fancy making a similar effort as regards ITV? (preferably Saturday evening about 7 o'clock)
History repeats itself. (Score:2)
Cost effective... (Score:2)
I know, it wouldn't work, the bad press that followed would be bad for most companies, (then again it might work for a beer company, or maybe apple computers...) but it is a fun thought.
They have (Score:2, Funny)
From the article.. (Score:2)
That's ok, a Pringles can is all I need.. to take over the world!
Van Halen Bong? (Score:2)
Bad Pun Alert (Again) (Score:5, Funny)
(I wonder if I'm going to lose karma points for that one...)
Terrorist, as defined by USA PATRIOT (Score:4, Interesting)
USA PATRIOT defines domestic terrorism as activities that attempt "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion".
Dictionary.com defines "coerce" thus: By that definition, Falun Gong are terrorists. So are all of us that marched on federal buildings attempting to use "pressure" to "compel" the DOJ to free Dmitry. Which serves as a good example of one of the many things that are wrong with USA PATRIOT.
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the terrorist party?
Don't they know anything? (Score:3, Funny)
(-:
S
Re:What's the point of this? (Score:2, Informative)
Because they've been imprisoning Falun Gong members for years now.
Because Falun Gong feel that they have no way of expressing their views to the population.
Saying that, this isn't exactly a clever thing to do. I can't imagine the Government are going to take it very well. Of course, unless the government are doing it themselves to discredit Falun Gong, but that's getting a bit Ollie Stone for me...
Re:What's the point of this? (Score:4, Informative)
Fulan Gong originally had no political aspirations at all. Mostly just a self help group drawing on an odd collection of Chinese cultural traditions.
But then the communist gov't decided there were too many of them (and a huge number of them were party officials themselves) and decided to repress them.
All attempts to change the opinion of the Chinese gov't have failed, leaving the multitudes of followers with a choice:
1. Disappear
2. Foster regime change
Since most members were part of the emerging middle class it is not surprising to see the kind of sophisticated hacking taking place. At least one hacking team has been caught and disappeared into the Chinese prison system. Which just shows that this group is far more sophisticated and robust than any had thought. They must have several teams out there. They are not just hacking satellites either- but also hijacking cables.
Most of the attacks have taken place in North Eastern China- The Rust Belt of China. This area has the highest unemployment of the Nation, and has seen many demonstrations against the Gov't in the past several years. Again, this shows the sophistication of the group's planners and reveals their goal: change the gov't to one that will allow for freedom of expression and religion.
As for comments by people calling them zealots and criminals, I'd take this lot over the lot of Zealots and criminals that has been running China for the past 50+ years any day!
China is a great place (lived in Taiwan and Asia for 5 years), but the communists have done tremendous damage to Chinese culture (most notably during the Cultural Revolution)
Does that help you understand?
Re:Falun Gong (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Falun Gong (Score:5, Insightful)
Far from it. Do you actually know much about the Falun Gong movement? It's not confined to China you know.
The Falun Gong is essentially a brainwashing cult, similar in style to scientology (though not belief). Its teachings, amongst other things, state that it is possible for a person to survive without food or water and exist just on pure light alone.
Fortean Times [forteantimes.com] ran a feature on them around a year or so ago...they are not some zen sect, they are are seriously dubious organisation.
I've been interested to see how the Western press overlooks the nature of the Falon Gong in their rush to show how evil China is. You never hear what the group actually stands for when listening to reports about them.
The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.
Cheers,
Ian
So what ... (Score:5, Insightful)
As an atheist, to me one set of mumbo-jumbo sounds equally as plausible as the next.
However, seeing lots of otherwise sane people believe all manner of this rot, the only rational approach to religion is to let people believe what they want and practice that belief how they want, as long as that practice is not harming others. The "not harming others" part can be exceedingly problematical. In this case I can't see that this group could create enough harm to anything to provide a moral justification for the Chines government's reaction. I can't understand why they're doing it (to eliminate organisations from China they can't control) but I can't see how anyone could argue a moral justification.
Re:Falun Gong (Score:2)
Re:Falun Gong (Score:2)
Really, that link's like posting Jack Chick [chick.com] as proof of how evil Catholics are...
Spam (Score:2, Insightful)
Given this climate I think Falun Gong were justified in their actions (they didn't actually damage anything, or hurt anyone), if only to help reverse some of the FUD that the Chinese leadership spread about them.
Ignorant! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ignorant! (Score:3, Interesting)
Falun Gong is a cult every bit as bad as the Scientologists [xenu.net], with an emphasis on physical exercises rather than mental.
Oddly, there is a town in Wisconsin called Falun. I keep meaning to go there to see if they have a gong.
Re:Ignorant! (Score:2)
The original Falun is still alive and well in sweden. It's several hundred years old and most known for sausages and a (also hundreds of years old) brand of red paint. Real boring place IMHO.
Re:Falun Gong are terrorists. (Score:3, Insightful)
So I guess you see nothing wrong with the civil rights violations associated with the chinese government. As long as it's not agains their laws.
Since you said you're an American, don't you realize that you're an American only because some TERRORISTS back in the 1700's decided to BREAK THE LAW and rebel against their government?
Re:Falun Gong are terrorists. (Score:3, Interesting)
israeli occupation are NOT terrorists but freedom fighters. Do I read you
correctly?
Re:Falun Gong are terrorists. (Score:4, Insightful)
They could be seen as both. So could the Israeli soldiers who storm through Palestenian villages be seen as terrorists or "enforcers of law and order". It all depends on who is writing the book.
Despite what GW Bush would like us to think, rarely is it the case where a person is "pure evil" or "pure good". It all depends on whos perspective you are looking from.
Re:Falun Gong are terrorists. (Score:2, Insightful)
israeli occupation are NOT terrorists but freedom fighters.
You see, that's the whole point: terrorism is a label that can be conveniently slapped on just about anyone. You did not answer the poster's question, but I don't suppose you would consider the "freedom fighters" that fought against the british rule over what is now the US to be terrorists. Well to the palestinians, it's the same fight, and they fight it with the only means they have been given: weapons and bombs.
Don't go thinking for a split second that I advocate attacks against civilians of any kind: I don't. I just don't believe that stigmatizing some groups as evil terrorists solves anything. The concept of "terrorism" is empty, and much to emotional to be of any use in a level-headed discussion, unless of course you want to buy into all of the propaganda we've been seeing in the last months.
Re:Falun Gong are terrorists. (Score:2)
--
Benjamin Coates
Re:Falun Gong are terrorists. (Score:2)
Re:Falun Gong are terrorists. (Score:2)
Yep. As are the IRA, ETA, etc. One man's terriorist is another man's freedom fighter, it all depends on what side of the fence you sit on.
Whilst I don't (of course) condone Palestinians blowing up Isreali buses, I also condem Isreali tanks destroying Palestinian villages (and for that matter, American planes bombing Afghan weddings). I view all those actions as equally reprehensible, there is no distinction simply because some of these acts are carried out by individuals, and some by governments. They are all acts of war, plain and simple.
Re:Falun Gong are terrorists. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that no clear-cut definition of what a terrorist is exists at this point. I call upon the US and International bodies to come up with a clear, accurate, definition of what a terrorist is. Otherwise, every common criminal (or accused person) could be labelled a terrorist and end up losing their rights granted by the constitution.
Re:Falun Gong are terrorists. (Score:3, Informative)
They lie about being the ones to develop qigong (which has been around for thousands of years)
They use spirituality to promote their own political agenda.
And, what makes me the most mad, their leader hides out in NY while he has his followers in China gettings themselves killed (both by burning themselves and pulling stunts like this)
I'd call it a personality cult.
Oh -- and they have no political plan that's viable. This, in my opinion, is very irresponsible and dangerous. Many millions of people would die should there be revolution in china. many millions more would die if there wasn't a VERY strong government after the revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Falun Gong are terrorists. (Score:2)
The Constitution applies to people within the United States, including non-citizens, illegal aliens, and enemy soldiers (but military law applies to that last group too).
--
Benjamin Coates
ianal, imho, ymmv, dttah.
Re:Falun Gong are terrorists. (Score:2)
During the American Revolution, there were two main elements fighting against the British.
First, there were the guerillas. Fire, run, attack, run, hide. That type of thing.
Second, there was "regular army". Regular army is an actual army - officers, training, disciple, uniforms, showing up for battles, etc.
The guerillas were terrorists, the Continental Army were not.
That's funny, the continental army, commanded by George Washington himself, used the tactics you just described. Hit and run. He knew he could never face the British in a regular fight. It's amazing we won the revolution at all... Oh wait, the French were helping us.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorist or Freedom Fighter? (Score:2)
The soldiers for the US War of Independence were not terrorists. They were declared combatants fighting for an open and stated (albeit new) government entity and represented the majority opinion of its people. It was a militia. It was open war. They were not attacking civilians. They were attacking military targets to end a conflict.
Also, by the definition of today, The Boston Tea Party would be considered Grad Felony Vandalism, Grand Larceny, and Conspiracy to Commit Grand Larceny. Hardly terrorism. Terrorist try to kill innocents. Early Americans killed tea. People were not killed until around the time that British troops took Boston over. Until the ARMIES showed up, there was precious little killing going on other than protest killings in Boston and other nearby areas.
The idea of a terrorist is based specifically on the definition of a combatant (soldier). It is in the Geneva Convention. Read up. The definitions are specific. Falun Gong deserves to not be called terrorists for this... crackers, yes. Terrorists? NO.
I would say that both of the posts are incorrect, upon the definition of a terrorist alone. The purpose of a terrrorist is to incite fear through the act of attacking innocents or government agencies through stealth and subversion.
Pasting a message up on television across China is hardly a terrorist act by definition, because it neither attacks innocents or creates fear and widespread panic. It is a plea to change the policies of the government, not an attack on that government or its citizens. The message was NOT DANGEROUS other than stating its views.
However... we (US Citizens) often forget that we are lucky to have been born in a country where you are allowed to have opinions that may go against our current government leaders, and you don't worry about it and can speak them openly.
In China, stating your views can get you killed.
Re:Here is your definition (Score:2)
Re:Falun Gong are terrorists. (Score:2)
Those were definitly military targets.
Just curious what you think about this.
Re:Falun Gong are terrorists. (Score:2)
huh? (Score:2)
Sit-ins are not terrorism. (They're ususally stupid, but that's another issue.)
Re:Falun Gong are terrorists. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure Martin Luther King and Ghandi would be amused to hear civil disobedience equated with terrorism. And in the logic of civil disobedience, it's justifiable to violate an unjust law.
You need to be thinking on the next level up.
TERROR is part of TERRORist for a reason. (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorists use violence to make themselves heard, not generic crime.
Using crime to make yourself heard is either simply immature (generic vandalism), or is activism (The civil rights movement, a key part of which was civil disobedience.)
Re:Falun Gong are terrorists. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it doesn't, you putz.
No one called Martin Luther King, Jr. a terrorist. That's because he didn't attack and/or kill civilians while fighting for civil rights.
This is something that left-wing, anti-American pinheads purposely obfuscate: TERRORISTS ARE TERRORISTS BECAUSE THEY INTENTIONALLY ATTACK CIVILIANS TO ADVANCE A POLITICAL AGENDA.
Bullshit all you want to wiggle around this definition, but it's true.
-jon
Re:Who's the "terrorist?" (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt they will be branded as terrorists, since no harm or threat was caused by this prank. However, the government will be in its rights to question every FG member, and maybe arrest a lot of them for participation in this deed.
But the more FG does what it just did, the clearer it becomes for the West that FG is indeed what Chinese government claimed all along - an army of militants, not a health club. The hack of a satellite falls into territory of sabotage and propaganda, something that health clubs don't do.
An analogy (Score:2)
Then, when people peacefully protested about the banning of "football", they were arrested and some of them were taken to detention camps. Then the government started using propaganda to demonise "footballers" as a bizarre cult who encourage their members to kill themselves.
What do you do? You can't participate in "football", and you can't tell you fellow citizens that the government is wrong about "football" because they a) control all the media, and b) aren't afraid to arrest anyone who supports "football". In these circumstances, you might even argue that it's reasonable for you to attempt armed rebellion against this totalitarian regime.
Now, what these guys have chosen to do, by comparison, is the most non-violent thing they could do to press their case - they've temporarily hacked the TV system to tell people that they don't sacrifice newborns by the full moon and that the government is being unreasonable and paranoid.
What kind of militancy is that?
Re:An analogy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:An analogy (Score:2)
Let's call this hypothetical activity "recreational drug use", shall we? Run it through your scenario and see what you get:
"What do you do? You can't participate in "drug use", and you can't tell you fellow citizens that the government is wrong about "drug use" because they a) control all the media, and b) aren't afraid to arrest anyone who supports "drug use". In these circumstances, you might even argue that it's reasonable for you to attempt armed rebellion against this totalitarian regime."
Sounds familiar?
Now, what these guys have chosen to do, by comparison, is the most non-violent thing they could do to press their case
Non-violent, true, but crime nonetheless.
I am actually surprised to see how many Western people try to rock the boat (Chinese boat, in this case) just because they think the boat is better off sunk. It is wrong, and nobody likes when foreigners meddle in internal affairs and very complicated political intrigues of a big country. For example, american sentiments are fully behind FG, so much that nobody wants to hear that FG is an asian equivalent of Taliban (or Asahara's gang.) But apparently it is.
Re:Who's the "terrorist?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Are the Falun terrorists for "hijacking" Chinese TV? Or are they rebels in a quest against the evil empire?
Insofar as they aren't practicing any actual form of terror, I'm going to vote "not terrorist."
To the best of my knowledge, they aren't...
I think, at worst, you could call them an insurgent organization. But in my book, no terror = no terrorism - and popping "falun gong is good" on the telly signal for a few seconds is not "terror" by any definition I've ever heard.
Re:Who's the "terrorist?" (Score:2)
Common criminals are known to threaten or kill police officers. Your local military force is designed to threaten or kill enemy military forces, and definitely threatens vital enemy infrastructure like power stations and dams.
I had the implicit assumption that we all recognize standard inter-State warfare and non-organized crime as exactly that, and therefore not terrorism.
Moreover, directly attacking civilian populations is something that was done regularly as late as WWII, even by the Allies. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not entirely military targets.
One can argue back and forth on this, which I won't bother to do here - it's ultimately pointless, as both sides have valid arguments. However, I will note that the Geneva Convention, which postdates World War II, attempts to limit or prohibit the practice of targeting civilian populations.
I'm suggesting that perhaps your criteria for determining who they are need to be tightened somewhat.
In letter, sure, but I think the spirit was there. And I still don't think Falun Gong qualifies ;)
Re:There goes to show... (Score:3, Informative)
Not true... I was using circa 1970 equipment in the mid 90's when I was doing satellite control/operations.
Re:There goes to show... (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds like somebody from the Blue Cube, the USAF Satellite Control Center in Sunnyvale, CA. That place had the Technology that Put Men On the Moon, the same Philco green-screen consoles that NASA Houston used for Apollo. The computers were UNIVAC and Control Data mainframes from the same period. That old gear was used into the 1990s. The upgrade project in the 1980s ("let's put it all on an IBM mainframe") didn't work, but finally, in the 1990s, control was moved to UNIX boxes and to a USAF base elsewhere.
Re:Video Clip (Score:2, Informative)
Considering the PRC government's stance and actions in regard to Falun Gong, you can imagine what a hot little item a video tape containing any of these broadcasts would be, and how long you'd sit in a prison cell for even showing it to the neighbors.
It's somewhat reminiscent of this quote: Leia: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Re:Falun Gong a dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's hear it for President Jiang Zemin, everyone! Give him a big hand! Isn't he great?
Hacked in the traditional sense, not cracked (Score:3, Interesting)
I am assuming that the Chinese are using a simple analog transmission over the transponder without any CA (conditional access/security).
If you have a big enough dish and enough power, you could get the transponder to lock to your carrier and get rebroadcast. The picture would look crappy, but it can be done.
There's no great defense against it other than implementing a secured digital transmission system where the IRDs (integrated receiver/demodualtors) do not have analog reception capability.
All the Falun Gong needed was an Earth Station anywhere in Asia that could see the bird and was willing to transmit. I doubt it was done from inside China. They'd know where all the 5+ meter dishes are in China and who was working them.
Information warfare of this type has a bit of a financial barrier to overcome to engage in, but once on the offensive, it is quite tough to defend against. The Soviet Union and Cuba were unable to stop the US radio and TV propaganda broadcasts throughout the cold war, no matter how much they spent.