film Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Hi .. i was watching this documentry on Tv a couple weeks ago, about i think its the FBI or CIA in america which have like a section of Anti-Cyber Terrorist group which basically hack into terrist site trace stuff that happend over internet , stuff like that really .. i was wondering is there a UK version of this as io have tryed google but nothing has came up ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparda Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Cyber terrorists don't exsist, it's some thing the american goverment made up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
film Posted August 24, 2006 Author Share Posted August 24, 2006 Cyber terrorists don't exsist, it's some thing the american goverment made up. Rofl ... crazy yanks :P ( no offence ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonffen Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 A cyber-terriorist would be someone who hacks into networks/computers without permission and does harm. Specifically with a political agenda. So no they didn't really make it up, but calling them terrorists is a load of shit that's just going to confuse people. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparda Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 They not cyber terrorists, they are cyber criminals, not terrorists in any shape or form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonffen Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 define:terrorist a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities define:cyber-terrorist hacker: a programmer who breaks into computer systems in order to steal or change or destroy information as a form of cyber-terrorism Not that I agree with the use of the word but I don't agree with using the word terrorist in the first place. It just seems like a relatively new and flawed idea to me. I mean why isn't the US government considered a terrorist group? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingwray Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 http://www.met.police.uk/computercrime/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparda Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 I don't have a problem with calling people or groups of people terrorists, it's just that law in america allows vertualy any one that brakes the law to be labled a terrorist. If a civil movment group arose and planned to over throw the goverment for what ever reason, they would be arrested and tried as terrorists dispite not actualy been terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrihD Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 It's the same with pirates and the p2p-ist. i'll always remember this pic : http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/piratead/CEA_ad.png Also, I agree with sparta, terrorist are terrorist, criminals are criminals and kilobyte is 1024bytes. edit : to stay in the subject, i think each country where the major of the RIAA sell music has a "cyber-criminal-police", and it's quite logical : they (try to) fight against child-pornography, phising, spamming etc... but they've a lot of job and little power Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Its the same as arresting someone for supporting terrorism when they were smoking a joint... oh wait, they are doing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparda Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 DVD and Video piracy supports terrorism! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 I can see it now, deep in the caves of afganistan, Osama is loading the Infidel Piracy Machine with yet another spindle of DVD's. "a jihad on Spider Man 2's profit margin!!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 A friend of mine saw that thing (I asked. He didn't know either) and ever since then he's been wanting to destroy America. There might be something to this after all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadaender Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Not all americans are selfish pigs or eat mcdonnalds all day. Many of which hate what our country's leaders are doing. But, the problem is that the majority are under-education, southern hicks who fight for the right to have a gun rack in their 1980's pickup and don't know a damn thing about the patiot act. It has the word 'patriot' in it so it must be a good thing. My god I moving as soon as I'm done with school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erroneous Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Terrorist as an idea is not a new thing (watch a few episodes of MacGuyver), but it is abused. The Patriot Act is baloney (what happens when you email a threatening message to theprez@usa.gov over TOR and make the from address somebody else's email? Did you just put an innocent person on the watch list?). As far as guns are concerned, we should have the ability to defend ourselves. If it is illegal for normal people to have guns, then only 2 kinds of people will be allowed to have them: criminals and the government, neither of whom I trust. Sometimes I feel like the US is becoming England in V for Vendetta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freakish Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Here is how I see America, I may be wrong but this is just my opinon. Americans put way to much into the history of their country, you can have a gun because an old piece of paper that says you have the right to bear arms. How stupid is that. People are being shot every day because of a piece of paper. Also the American military always wants to act first. Lets say Iraq is making some bio weapon and the American military hears about it, suddenly they are doing everything they can to pefect the weapon so they can be the first to attack. I mean doing everything they can including testing it on animals, and humans. Don't believe me? Look up Operiation Artichoke. I'm Canadian btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Go see Bowling For Columbine. Canadians own guns too. Lots of them in fact. The point of that movie was pretty much that the US Media is telling the nation that they should be scared out of their minds for all sorts of stuff. When you're surrounded by danger, you'll do what it takes to be safe®. When you see something going down that might not be particularly friendly, you start with assuming this will be danger, knocking at your door. So you go find your gun, maybe fire a few bullets into whatever is causing the problem, and then maybe stop and think what this perceived threat was all about. Wether or not his point is valid is for each to decide on their own, but the fact remains that throughout the world many civilised countries allow their populace to own and carry guns. And except for America, all those countries have but a fraction of the shooting incidents that America has. Whatever is causing this, the amount and accessibility of guns isn't the main part of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmo Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Also the American military always wants to act first. Lets say Iraq is making some bio weapon and the American military hears about it, suddenly they are doing everything they can to pefect the weapon so they can be the first to attack. I mean doing everything they can including testing it on animals, and humans. Don't believe me? Look up Operiation Artichoke. It's the government, not the american military, we just follow orders of the politicians. And who cares about animals anyways? you eat them with no problem, so do you care how they died? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 And who cares about animals anyways? you eat them with no problem, so do you care how they died? Well, if they were poisoned... Hell yeah! :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freakish Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 It's the government, not the american military, we just follow orders of the politicians.And who cares about animals anyways? you eat them with no problem, so do you care how they died? Oh that's a nice way to think about it, "I didn't posion a towns water supply, I was just following orders.", "I didn't destroy their homes, I was just following orders." If a terrorist bombs a building is it his falt? Of corse not, he was just following orders. I eat meat, I admit it I'm horrible. How would you like to die, an instant death or drowing in a pool of your own puke? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmo Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Oh that's a nice way to think about it, "I didn't posion a towns water supply, I was just following orders.", "I didn't destroy their homes, I was just following orders." If a terrorist bombs a building is it his falt? Of corse not, he was just following orders. We NEVER poisoned a towns water supply dickhead. Stop making shit up. As for the homes, if a fucking terrorist is hiding in there trying to kill us, you bet we'll blow the fucker up. I've never seen or heard of a terrorist blowing up our buildings because we were shooting at him. So yes, it is his fault, he's not trying to defend his life, just murder innocent people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erroneous Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 "I didn't posion a towns water supply, I was just following orders.", "I didn't destroy their homes, I was just following orders." The difference between the statement made say by our military and the Nazis is that our military is indirectly controlled by the people. Hence, if you are upset about what is going on, influence others to see things your way to change it. Blaming the military isn't going to do you any good. They are just doing what they signed up for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freakish Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 We NEVER poisoned a towns water supply dickhead. Stop making shit up.As for the homes, if a fucking terrorist is hiding in there trying to kill us, you bet we'll blow the fucker up. I've never seen or heard of a terrorist blowing up our buildings because we were shooting at him. So yes, it is his fault, he's not trying to defend his life, just murder innocent people. I didn't say that those quotes were real, but there are records of things like poisons being used to destroy enemy crops (I'm not talking about the war in Iraq). Are you telling me that no innocent people have been hurt? Are American soldiers innocent? How do the Iraqy people see this, thousands of Americans coming into their country, causing chaos and forcing a democracy. I'm sure that you are doing what you believe is right but it looks like an invation to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmo Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 We don't get to decide what is right or wrong, we had to go into iraq because our president ordered it. As for the Iraquis, they are very friendly towards us, it's the foreign fighters coming into iraq that try and kill everyone. Yes, there are iraquis that hate us, but then again, there are americans that hate us too, you can't please everyone. The border villages that i was stationed near are FAR better off with our help, they now have a school, soccer field, running water, electricity, and food suplies. Most american soldiers are innocent, they don't want to be there. They have kids, wives, husbands, and loved ones at home that they'd rather be with. Instead, they are fighting dickheads in a foreign country because they were ordered to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 The important question is "was that the right order to give?". Should we be in Iraq, or should we have just kept to afganistan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.