Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Privacy Communications Government United States Politics

Ex AT&T Tech Says NSA Monitors All Web Traffic 566

Sir Tandeth writes "A former technician at AT&T, who alleges that the telecom giant forwards virtually all of its internet traffic into a 'secret room' to facilitate government spying, says the whole operation reminds him of something out of Orwell's 1984. Appearing on MSNBC's Countdown program, whistleblower Mark Klein told Keith Olbermann that all Internet traffic passing over AT&T lines was copied into a locked room at the company's San Francisco office — to which only employees with National Security Agency clearance had access. 'Klein was on Capitol Hill Wednesday attempting to convince lawmakers not to give a blanket, retroactive immunity to telecom companies for their secret cooperation with the government. He said that as an AT&T technician overseeing Internet operations in San Francisco, he helped maintain optical splitters that diverted data en route to and from AT&T customers. '"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ex AT&T Tech Says NSA Monitors All Web Traffic

Comments Filter:
  • Encrypt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Monstard ( 855195 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:07PM (#21300731)
    The future of internet is encrypted internet.
  • by zibix ( 654122 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:08PM (#21300745)
    There's simply no reason to believe anything you do online is hidden from anyone.
  • by geminidomino ( 614729 ) * on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:09PM (#21300749) Journal
    I am somehow not convinced... how many TB of data would a major provider like that move in a day? Those would have to be some moby servers...
  • by cavtroop ( 859432 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:13PM (#21300831)
    and there are pictures of the secret room at AT&T here [] Hmm, interesting. Two pictures of random signs that could be anywhere, and two pictures of the front of the building. None of which show anything remotely interesting. Incriminating stuff, that :) Not that I don't think they do this, just that the pictures are....underwhelming...
  • Re:Encrypt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by marcop ( 205587 ) < minus author> on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:13PM (#21300835) Homepage
    No. Why should I? The constitution is clear on this issue. The true answer is impeach those responsible and prosecute At&T. criminally.
  • by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:15PM (#21300859)

    I am somehow not convinced... how many TB of data would a major provider like that move in a day? Those would have to be some moby servers...
    That it is all forwarded through that secret room doesn't mean that they look at it all. Perhaps they have some algorithm, some system or filter, for determining what they want to look at closer...
  • Re:Doubtful (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Divide By Zero ( 70303 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:15PM (#21300871)
    The fact that a thing cannot be done well in a reasonable amount of time within a predetermined budget has never gotten in the way of our government trying to do it anyway.
  • by arsheive ( 609065 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:16PM (#21300875)
    Yes, they would. But this is also the frickin' NSA...

    Not to mention that they're only looking at certain type of packets I'd imagine... ignoring streaming video and the like and focusing on email, instant messaging, slashdot posts...
  • by purpledinoz ( 573045 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:17PM (#21300889)
    What's worse is that this will be justified under the guise of anti-terrorism. As bills get passed to erode the freedom of American's, I'm watching the US slowly descend into totalitarianism. Lets face it, Americans just don't care. And why should they? They live comfortable lives, entertained with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. If they follow the rules, they won't get hassled. Things will have to get pretty bad until people wake up and realize what has happened.
  • Re:Encrypt (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dnormant ( 806535 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:19PM (#21300929)
    You and GP are right. We have the right to our privacy AND the responsibility to protect ourselves from a crooked government.

    Encrypt your data and spank these lawless assholes.
  • by oxpecker ( 904374 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:20PM (#21300935)
    Just because they dont have the space to store all the data doesn't mean the data isn't being re-directed. They could be sifting through the data for specific ip address's and activity types, and selectivly backing what they want from the whole pile.
  • by TheMeuge ( 645043 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:24PM (#21300985)
    While I doubt that they "save" all the traffic, it is entirely possible, that transmitted data is scanned for certain key words and the flagged packets are then investigated further. I think it isn't unreasonable to suspect that the ENTIRE web traffic moving in and out of the computers of some AT&T clients is recorded.

    Given this data, it is entirely clear that there is no reason to believe that any non-encrypted data is not going to be monitored, recorded, and traced.

    While we must try to abort this particular endeavor through the civil process, it is rather clear to me that it's likely to be a futile effort. The way I see it, as the technological capability for total surveillance draws closer, the government and commercial entities will not be far behind.
  • it's not stealing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:25PM (#21301011)
    The NSA didn't take anything, they just copied some bits. The original owners still have their copy so have suffered no loss.

    This being slashdot, that should be ok with most folks here.

  • by jgarra23 ( 1109651 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:34PM (#21301179)
    Lets face it, Americans just don't care. And why should they? They live comfortable lives, entertained with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. If they follow the rules, they won't get hassled.

    Thank goodness that's not the meaning of your post :) This saturation of bland media with metro-sexual men running all over the place is just what right-wing America wants to pull the fleece over our eyes despite their claims to the contrary and complaints about it. The left is just as bad though. They both complain about the media they so dearly love that dulls and confuses the masses into submission. Oh man... it makes me sick... HBO On Demand, TV On Demand, Movies On Demand, Sports On Demand, real information about how you are being fleeced, nowhere to be seen here!
  • Re:Olbermann? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QCompson ( 675963 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:39PM (#21301235)

    Come on, that Countdown program is just about as biased left as you can get. I guess bias for the liberal side is called news, and bias for conservatives is an outrage, requiring an attack dog like Media Matters. It's a good thing that Fox News exists, or there would be no conservative voices in the media at all.
    No kidding. Remember in the run-up to the Iraq war when the Bush administration couldn't get their agenda across to the american people because all the lefty news outlets refused to parrot their claims? Oh wait, that's right. Pretty much 99% of the American media (including the highly "liberal" New York Times) spent the years 2002-2004 mindlessly repeating the administration's talking points without doing any independent reporting.

    But still, it's a good thing we have Fox News. Otherwise where would I get all the newest info on my favorite celebrities (what's that silly Paris up to today)? Or how I would know which ethnic/religious/political group to direct my hatred towards?
  • by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:50PM (#21301381) Homepage Journal
    After all the bills and executive orders they put through to increase the authority of the president and his office, unwarranted wiretapping stuff, 'enemy combatant' joke, guantanamo, no-fly lists and such, you thought they would leave internet alone ?

    Thats bush & co for you. No surprise at&t is the name that comes up with them. after all, its 'for the boyZ', right ?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09, 2007 @05:52PM (#21301421)
    There are systems that do exactly this. []Narus, for example. I quote: "Real-time data capture, classification and normalization at speeds from 100baseT to 10G/OC192 using Narus High-Speed-Analyzer..."

    In '99 I was working at a large ISP that was approached by (undisclosed), they wanted to put three loaded Sun E10Ks on the network to capture and catalog all the data traveling to our peering points. We kindly declined the offer.
  • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @06:25PM (#21301887)
    But alas, they don't hate us for our freedom and never have. So we're very busily and efficiently solving the wrong problem.

    They hate us because we've been meddling in their governments, undermining their sovereignty, propping up dictators favorable to us, invading them when those propped up dictators fall out favor, all for our own national self interests.

    I know your post was intended to be funny, and was, but the irony of situation is even worse.

    Taking away our freedoms will never stop foreign terrorists from hating us for jerking their countries around. But it might well spawn an outbreak of domestic terrorism if they keep at it. The Unabomber was just a prelude, as the very type of stuff he lashed out about is coming to pass.

  • by Duhavid ( 677874 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @06:27PM (#21301919)
    "Next, I don't buy it because it's not feasible. How many NSA agents would it take to monitor ALL Internet traffic."

    You assuming at least a couple things here
        A: That Agents are monitoring the traffic. Could be they are filtering for keywords. Storing for later review.
        B: That they are looking at all the traffic.

    And on fighting terrorism, how about we stop sending them money that ends up making
    them such a valuable part of the world? And I don't know what is wrong with leaving
    them alone, really. There is some legitimacy to their grievances, you know.
    What is now Israel was Palestine ( and before that had a variety of owners,
    none of them Jewish until you get *really* far back ). Britain decides for
    partition, and you have to give up your homeland, your business, your home
    so that a bunch of people who have been practicing terrorism in your country
    can have a home? If it were you, you would be pissed, and fighting back,
    so would I. Why is that so hard to understand? Now, don't go getting on any
    "you must hate Israelis" thing, furthest thing from the truth. I understand
    ( and support ) the idea of Israel having a homeland, but I also understand
    that the Palestinians want the same, and have been moved to provide it for
    the Israelis. Not to mention all the building that Israelis have done in
    the contested areas to attempt to annex those areas.

    And America has involved itself in this conflict, supplying arms and money
    to support Israel.

    I don't know what all the answers are, but starting the discussion with
    ignoring where all the parties are "at" is not wise.
  • by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @06:38PM (#21302041) Homepage
    Just like many other conspiracy theories, this one fails the Occam's Razor test.

    Like most premature and inappropriate applications of Occam's Razor, this one fails the Thought For Seven Seconds test.

    So they can't the whole internet. They sure as hell can have it split to go through their secret rooms in the telco's offices, where they can do whatever keyword searching or other simple analysis they want and then save off the portion that may be considered interesting.

    The whole point is that he doesn't know what the NSA is doing with the data, he only knows that he set up the splitters to route a copy of all the data into the secret room.

    The "and they're saving everything to disk" part is something that someone here made up and now has apparently become an official part of the "conspiracy theory". So if that part doesn't make sense, the whole thing must be a lie! Except no, it doesn't work that way.
  • by QuickFox ( 311231 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @06:48PM (#21302173)

    How does monitoring bits over a wire limit your freedom
    If a CIA officer followed you everywhere, always two steps behind you, registering and reporting every opinion you utter and every person you contact, would you feel that your freedom and your democratic rights were being respected?

    Is monitoring on a wire better just because it happens far away where you can't see it?

    I suppose you feel that it's tolerable as long as government and law enforcement remain reasonably democratic and every officer of the law remains reasonably uncorrupted. But how long will they remain this way, and not succumb to the temptations inherent in these arrangements? Temptation has a very strong corrupting effect.

    or prevent you from voting?
    Democracy isn't just voting. Lots of countries have voting without being democratic.
  • by jo42 ( 227475 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @06:51PM (#21302201) Homepage

    Follow the money. Who gains from a powerful military, full prisons, terrible education and a fat, lazy corrupt police force?
    The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the 'middle class' gets screwed over even more.
  • by QuickFox ( 311231 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @07:01PM (#21302309)

    Some people also don't believe that the Constitution is a suicide pact.
    Far, far more people die from traffic accidents than from terrorism. It would make far, far more sense to sacrifice freedom and democracy for the sake of saving traffic lives. The same goes for tobacco, alcohol, and many other causes of death. Terrorism is really tiny. Sacrificing democracy for such a tiny cause makes no sense.
  • by Tiger Smile ( 78220 ) <james@ d o r> on Friday November 09, 2007 @07:01PM (#21302313) Homepage
    The American public and media will react to the lack of sexiness in this story with the kind of outrage you might express when you see a long line at the grocery store checkout. Americans will sit on their increasing asses and watch it all happen, and unlike the frog in the beaker, American will turn up the heat all on their own. You only need to utter the nine from 9/11 and they scream "How much can I give you to feel safe again!?" (I borrowed that from Family Guy)

    In any case, stop you damned moaning?! This story is false because it fails to ask you what the f**k you are going to do about it? If nothing you are the problem! I'm going to do the norm. Write a litter. How that hell is this the "Home of the free?" Were monitored more than a Jewish school in Germany in the 1930's. Okay, Hitler was bad, and he was worse than this, but he sure would have thought it a damned nice item.

    I'm not even going to insult you by listing all we've lost in freedoms. That would be whining. Lost. That sure as hell is the wrong word. we gave away freedoms like offerings to a pagan god(and not one of the cool ones). We burned them by the bushel. Can you buy a house without showing ID? How easy is it to wire funds. Oh, we'll catch a few, but we'll have to except being tracked watched and ID'ed any time we want to do something.

    All that, rather than solving the problem. All the fuss. All the paranoia. All the tracking, monitoring, and so on. It's got the be the biggest sexual fetish for the inner fascist bubbling to the surface of America.

    Do something to stop it, or I'm pointing at you and saying "You are all for it. You are fascism's little cheerleader, By saying nothing. You did this."
  • by crabpeople ( 720852 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @07:04PM (#21302345) Journal
    A music or movie is widely broadcast, that is the point of it, to tell a story. If an artist wants to let no one hear his song, locks it in a vault, and it gets shared, then thats wrong. But if an artist is producing music to be heard, then they have no right to privacy in regards to that song now do they?

    You are somehow confusing the right to privacy with disseminating other peoples already released intelectual property. The issues are not even remotely similar. Of course this being slashdot, you have been wildly and incorrectly modded up.

  • by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @07:13PM (#21302435) Homepage Journal
    Could be ... communism

    With a few exceptions, the kinds of curtailment that are happening or being attempted now were not tried on a large scale when communism was the major scare. Instead, the fact that such measures weren't in place was held up as the difference between us and the communists.
  • by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @07:27PM (#21302563) Journal
    How does monitoring bits over a wire limit your freedom or prevent you from voting?

    Ask Shi Tao, or Li Zhi. Don't think that people aren't being harassed elsewhere. It's just done through traffic stops, or tax audits, etc. Things that don't make the papers.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09, 2007 @07:29PM (#21302585)
    And yet they don't bomb Mexico, Canada, Africa, Japan, Russia, etc even though they're all different cultures. You're fooling yourself if you think that our political actions don't put us towards the top of their shitlist.

    Indeed some muslims want to kill us all. Does that warrant spending over []2 TRILLION dollars mostly borrowed from the Chinese to kill them? Our president spends money like a teenager with a credit card, without care for who's going to have to pay it back or the price of interest. That kind of short-sightedness is going to screw us over in the next 30 years.
  • Charming (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spun ( 1352 ) <> on Friday November 09, 2007 @07:30PM (#21302595) Journal
    What an appropriate sig. "I hurt people for fun." Charming. You may be a psychopath, but at least you're honest about it. As reprehensible as "Turn their [terrorists] country of origin into a smoking wasteland" is, the more important point is that it just won't accomplish what you think it will. What it would accomplish is to unite the entire world against us. We would be the ones obliterated. But, as you hurt people for fun, I'm sure you'd find any outcome featuring enough hurt people enjoyable.
  • by QuickFox ( 311231 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @07:33PM (#21302625)

    Turn their country of origin into a smoking wasteland and make it clear that anyone who follows suite will join them.
    In other words, since the London bombers were British, let's turn Britain into glass. And since Timothy McVeigh was American, let's turn the US into a vast wasteland of radioactive glass.

    Something tells me the British would oppose such a plan. The Americans, on the other hand, are much more bloodthirsty, and also much more act-first-and-think-only-later-(if-at-all). But somehow I think even the Americans would oppose a plan that turns the entire US into glass. You can erode their democracy all you want, but I think even they would react adversely to a plan that would kill them all.

    The unpatriotic bastards. They don't realize that for the holy cause of fighting terrorism you have to be ready to accept some sacrifices.
  • Yawn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Master Control P ( 655590 ) <ejkeever@nerds[ ] ['hac' in gap]> on Friday November 09, 2007 @07:41PM (#21302709)
    Everyone is up in arms because a PRIVATE shipping company is opening and xeroxing every document that passes through it's PRIVATE distribution network and forwarding the xerox to the government.

    I mean, so what that it's basically impossible to avoid either using Bizzaro-FedEx or have them handle your document at some point, they're a MONOPOLY CORPORATION and not the government, so that magically makes it moral and legal *coughfruit of a poisoned treecough* for them to help the government spy on you by proxy.

    Can I have some of the peyote they're putting in your koolaid?
  • by poot_rootbeer ( 188613 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @07:45PM (#21302741)
    Some people also don't believe that the Constitution is a suicide pact.

    I would rather die than allow the protections guaranteed to us by the Constitution to be stolen from us.

    Anybody who would not is a wretched coward.
  • Re:Encrypt (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Duhavid ( 677874 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @07:52PM (#21302779)
    "However, you could just as plausibly (read: not very plausibly) make an analogy between IP packets and shouting across a crowded room. In that case, anything the gov't hears is fair game"

    There is a difference between what the government accidentally hears shouted across
    a crowded room, and the government actively seeking to occupy all rooms so that they
    can hear every conversation, whispered, shouted or spoken in code.

    I would argue that government should not be so seeking without probably cause and a warrant.
  • Re:Shameful (Score:5, Insightful)

    by soren100 ( 63191 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @08:02PM (#21302867)

    It is already a totalitarianism state, you don't have to wait for it.

    Your words are, frankly, insulting to the millions of individuals who lost their liberty, lives, property, and loved ones in REAL totalitarian states. Read the Gulag Archipelago sometime and get informed.
    The problem is, that the REAL totalitarian states never just appear fully formed. They go through stages. Germany before WWI had a constitution and elected its leaders in a democratic (or at least Republican, to be more correct) fashion. There were no gas chambers then.

    Another example is that the Jews were forced to wear the yellow "star of david" on their clothes in 1938. If they were to complain about the regulations and say that they were living in a "police state", then by your logic they could easily be ridiculed because the concentration camps such as Auschwitz had not been built yet -- construction on those started in 1940. By your logic the star of david is just a patch on a coat, nothing to be worried about, right? So by your words and logic they would be "frankly, insulting" their future selves who would be dying in the gas chambers two years later.

    The problem with your logic is that you are saying that a person cannot complain about the totalitarian nature of his country until he can be killed for just complaining about the totalitarian nature of his country -- a "catch 22".

    America is definitely becoming less and less free every day and more authoritarian -- that is very easy to see. The right of privacy is guaranteed by our constitution, and when it is public knowledge that our government is publicly ignoring that constitution that is definitely the time to complain. Our constitution was created to protect us from our government and when our government starts treating it like toilet paper it is time definitely time to do something.

    I honestly think you feel good about yourself through pretending you live in a totalitarian state for the same reason that Christians enjoy hearing stories about "persecuted Christians" in third-world hell holes.
    It is illegal for the government to do domestic warrantless wiretapping, yet they admit that they are doing it. It is illegal for the government to torture people, yet they admit they are doing it. It is illegal for the government to deny people their judicial due process by taking people to secret prisons in foreign countries, but they admit they are doing it. Anyone who does not understand that American rights and freedoms, like the right to privacy and t are disappearing has their head in the sand.

    America is no longer the "land of the free and home of the brave" and it is very much high time for everyone to start recognizing that fact and start speaking up. Trying to say that our government is not repressive enough or authoritarian enough to speak up about it is ridiculous. The people who were tortured and killed at Abu Ghraib and other places at the hands of our government would not find those words "frankly, insulting". They would say that those words are an understatement.

    When people in America joke on a regular basis that if you say anything against the government that you might be sent to Guantanamo, and when our elected officials argue about whether or not repeatedly drowning someone and reviving them is torture, you can be pretty sure that we have crossed the line that divides a free state and an authoritarian state.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09, 2007 @08:15PM (#21302981)
    But alas, they don't hate us for our freedom and never have.

    So true. In fact, they are now laughing at how easily we give up our freedoms.
  • by Das Modell ( 969371 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @09:46PM (#21303601)
    Yes, O'Reilly is clearly far more dangerous than the global Jihad.
  • by Das Modell ( 969371 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @09:51PM (#21303629)

    And yet they don't bomb Mexico, Canada, Africa, Japan, Russia, etc even though they're all different cultures. You're fooling yourself if you think that our political actions don't put us towards the top of their shitlist.

    America's position does put it at the top of the shitlist, but that doesn't mean that it's only targeted because of its foreign policies.

    Islamic fundamentalism is alive and well in Africa, and there's also fundamentalist and terrorist activity in Canada. Islamic fundamentalism is also a problem in Britain, Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Italy and Australia.
  • by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@y a h o o . com> on Friday November 09, 2007 @09:53PM (#21303645)
    Do you understand what an Islamic fundamentalist is? Do you understand that they hate most music, they ban it if they can. They hate women having freedom to choose and do things for themselves. They ban this if they can. Have you heard of honour killings?

    Don't be fooled by this 'it's all our fault' mentality folks. There are religious maniacs out there that hate our culture, hate 'our freedoms'. And they want to impose their islamic law upon the world. They would kill us if they could.

    And again, they only want to kill us because we are killing them.

    You need to actually use your head for once and think about the argument you're making here. Your argument is extremely self-centered - it assumes everything a fundamentalist muslim believes is because of us. Well, guess what, there have been fundamentalist muslims in the world since before this country existed. The United States is not the center of the universe.

    Why would they hate our music if they didn't have to hear it? What does being against freedom for women have to do with hating the west? (I'm not saying it's right for them to feel that way, but it's their belief - it's got nothing to do with us.) Ditto for "honor killings" - hey, we've got thousands of those every year here in the United States too, they should love us for that. We're practically showing them the way.

    The reason they hate us is because we're constantly shoving ourselves down their throats. We don't believe the same things they do but we are forcing both our governmental system and our culture onto them - literally forcing these things onto them through military action if necessary. How would you feel if another country did that to us? Would you love that country?

    Your attitude is as pervasive as it is wrong, and it stems from the fact that so few Americans have ever even been off this continent. We think the way we do things is the way everybody does things, and if they don't, they're just backwards and need to be educated. Well, that's not the way the world is. Every country has its own systems, its own culture and its own beliefs, most of which are far older and well-established than ours, and those beliefs may be diametrically opposed to yours without having anything to do with you. In other words, just because a person's beliefs are the opposite of yours does not mean they're reacting against you. Again, this country is far younger than the muslim religion, and there have always been people who interpret its laws strictly. But now, we have given them an enemy. We've handed them a rallying point on a silver platter. It didn't have to be that way; we could have left them alone.

    I also find it amazing that nobody who parrots the same line you do ever stops to see the fallacy in the logic. If they hate our freedoms so much, why is our stated goal to eradicate terrorism by forcing those same freedoms on them? (Again, through military action if necessary.) The entire argument makes no sense from any standpoint.
  • by zippthorne ( 748122 ) on Saturday November 10, 2007 @01:46AM (#21304631) Journal
    We meddled in Vietnam, too, and badly. But you don't see Vietnamese crashing planes into our buildings and blowing up random civilians and embassies. In fact, last I checked, we're on not-that-crappy terms with them. I doubt they'll ever love us, but they don't seem to have any problem with being one of our trading partners.

    I'm curious, also, as to how we offended the Barbary Pirates to make them capture our cargoes and ransom or impress our sailors.

    There's definitely more to it than our meddling.
  • by zippthorne ( 748122 ) on Saturday November 10, 2007 @02:01AM (#21304687) Journal
    Won't work. We couldn't carry through on that threat. Baghdad sand has too low a silica content.
  • Wow, so all these countries are just super-cool with the fact that their leaders are puppets and their country is riddled with US military bases?

    And don't forget Pinochet. The US has been trying to control all the world: Vietnam, middle east, South America, Cuba, etc. Is it wrong that the US has gained enemies ALL AROUND THE WORLD?

    ZOMG, the terrorists want to kill us all!!!!111one
    Gee, I wonder why...
  • by IgnoramusMaximus ( 692000 ) on Saturday November 10, 2007 @04:57AM (#21305201)

    Yes, O'Reilly is clearly far more dangerous than the global Jihad.

    Well, actually, yes.

    You see, all of the jihad is based on demagougery exploiting various, mostly unrelated, real or imagined grievances in the Arab world, and aims at creation of violence and warfare towards all and any comers who are unlike the target audience via indoctrination, lies, manipulation of facts etc and so on. At the forefront of the movement are loudmouth morons who spew constant stream of anti-everything-non-fundamentalist-Islam invective and rouse various sociopaths to action, mostly via small arms warfare combined with improvised explosives, punctuated by suicidal bomb attacks and a very rare spectacular terrorist assault on foreign soil, which results in few thousand casualties per year on average.

    On the other hand we have demagougery exploiting various, mostly unrelated, real or imagined grievances in of the xenophobic, supremacist white subsectuion of American society, which aims at creation of violence and warfare towards all and any comers who are unlike the target audience via indoctrination, lies, manipulation of facts etc and so on. At the forefront of the movement are loudmouth morons who spew constant stream of anti-everything-non-white-upper-class-Christainst invective and rouse various sociopaths to action, mostly via large scale warfare, aerial bombardment and wholesale occupation of foreign nations, exctrajudicial imprisonment in Gulags, torture etc, with hundreds of thousands of casualties in Iraq alone in a period of 4 years.

    In other words, O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin etc are the ideological equivalents of Osama and various pontificating radical Imams in their various Madrassas. The difference is that their spew is empirically proven to be capable of causing vastly more damage and casualties than that of all the modern jihadis combined so far.

    Perheaps that will change when the Pakistani nukes change hands to Taliban or Al-Queda and O'Reilly and Osama will start competing on more even terms.

    None of which of course helps the more sane part of the humanity which is likely to caught in the crossfire caused by the blowhard morons of the world.

    My dream is that one day all of the most insane of the violence promoting demagouges like O'Reilley, Coulter and Osama are all caught, given flamethrowers or some such and sent to an uninhabited island to practice what they preach on each other, while the rest of the world goes on about making our lives better. The last one standing gets to own the island where his followers are all sent as a punishment to listen to his or her whining 24/7 for the rest of their short lives.

  • by IgnoramusMaximus ( 692000 ) on Sunday November 11, 2007 @03:11PM (#21315137)

    If you think O'Reilly, Coulter and Malkin (what is she even doing on this list?) are just as dangerous as the global Jihad,

    I have plain as day, empirical evidence to prove it: the "global jihad" is equipped with AK-47s, RPGs, some stolen explosives and what seems like an infinite supply of suicidal idiots. People whom O'Reilly, Coulter and Malkin (she substituted for O'Reilly on FOX) are in a position to influence control the most advanced army humanity ever constructed, complete with nuke tipped ICBMs, aircraft carriers and the like. The "global jihad" managed, after 20 years of plotting, to kill 3000 US citizens on US soil employing the apex of the most advanced of Al-Queda's weapons technologies: 19 pairs of box cutters. The followers of O'Reilly have invaded whole nations and killed hundreds of thousands of their citizens, leveled whole cities and drove millions of refugees out of their homes using armored divisions, aerial bombardment and attack helicopters.

    There is just no contest.

    you are either severely delusional

    Simple empirical observation, see above.

    or a fanatical adherent of the theory of universal moral equivalence which states that everything in the universe is always perfectly balanced so that you never have to have a real opinion on anything

    Morality?! Both sides in this conflict are deeply immoral, corrupt, dishonest, manipulative, vicious, callous to the human consequences of their actions, and thoroughly vile. One wishes to dominate the world via a barbaric, brainless medieval religious doctrine, the other wants to dominate the world via armies and a corrupt political/economic system aimed at enriching the aristocracy of Corporate America and also does not shy away from utilizing their own medieval religious doctrines as it suits them and their Israeli accomplices. There is no good guys in this fight, other then perheaps some few poor non-sectarian Iraqis who only want to get on with their lives and are being killed, maimed, herded and abused by all sides.

    Christians are just as evil as Muslims

    You ooze your religious biggotry. What does this nonsensical satement mean?! As "evil" as Muslims? You mean they conducted Crusades and skinned people alive during the Spanish Inquisition? Burned scientists on the stake? Do explain.

    I have news for you: all fundamentalist wackos, irrespective of the type of their mental disease are evil. With no exception. They will try to subjegate, and failing that maim and murder anyone who is actively resisting their particular woo-woism. Christians did it, and are actively doing it (see Iraq) and so do Muslims, Jews and many others. Religions are the scourge of civilization. If it weren't for the secular Enlightenment the Catholics would be still spilling the guts of children of Lutherans who would be still spilling the guts of Calvinists and Baptists would be still gutting the children of Catholics and vice versa. And so now the medieval darkness is returning again, and vicious crazies are at each-other's throats again until some adults step in, hopefuly before the Muslim, Christian and Jewish religious lunatics blow the planet apart.

    the Quran and Bible are carbon copies of each other

    Thay are different flavours of equally irrational and hateful ravings full of vindictive, vicious, violent acts by their respective make-believe invisible old-men-in-the-sky and even more vicious followers of those sick fantasies, both demanding irrational behaviours from their victims and both utterly incompatible with any rational, advanced civilization. Both should have stayed behind where they belong: medieval dark ages.

    Saudi Arabia is just as bad as the US

    I am sure the billionaire princes within would disagree.

    George W. Bush is just like Hitler

Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.