The "Daily Stormer", a neo-Nazi website that has been having trouble staying online since Charlottesville, has once again been shutdown.
According to The Verge:
The neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer briefly returned to the web today, using a new URL and a string of new hosts to dodge the bans that took it off the internet last week. The site reappeared this morning at the address Punished-stormer.com, apparently using Dreamhost as both a host and DNS provider.
[note: url modified]
Shortly after the new site became public, Anonymous groups began a denial-of-service attack against it, targeting the Dreamhost DNS infrastructure that makes the site accessible to the rest of the web. The result was nearly two hours of intermittent downtime for the countless sites using Dreamhost's DNS infrastructure.
In WWII, things like this were called "collateral damage", where innocent casualties were necessary in order to get at the Nazis themselves. But is this sort of action legitimate on the internet? Especially by non-governmental organizations?
Also reported at https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2017/08/dreamhost-ddos-attack/
Related story: https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/21/16180614/charlottesville-daily-stormer-alt-right-internet-domain
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:02PM (33 children)
One small detail: RAF Bomber Command specifically and intentionally targeted civilian areas, because they were big enough not to miss (the RAF had trouble hitting the right continent) and, you know, break the will of the populace to resist.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:06PM (23 children)
One small detail: those civilians were producing resources for the war effort.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:18PM
Unless it's the very young or the very old, civilians always produce resources for the war effort.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday August 26 2017, @07:04PM (21 children)
That argument legitimizes every terrorist bombing/crowd plowing incident ever committed.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by mhajicek on Saturday August 26 2017, @07:56PM (6 children)
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:23PM (1 child)
So the Nazis were freedom fighters? They bombed the crap out of Coventry and London.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Sunday August 27 2017, @08:41AM
Many of them did indeed believe that what they were doing was right. That's kind of how the world works; everyone thinks they're the good guy and all their enemies are evil.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:25AM (3 children)
Using bombs on children is ALWAYS murder.
Firebombing children by the tens of thousands is simply evil.
You are a sociopath.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by mhajicek on Sunday August 27 2017, @08:39AM (2 children)
Then the USA is an evil terrorist organization. Our government sends drones to bomb thousands of innocent women and children, yet every one gets all huffy if one of their surviving relatives kills a couple of our people in retaliation.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @10:03AM (1 child)
I seriously doubt that OriginalOwner would take issue with calling the US (Government) an evil terrorist organization. Not sure how one could really argue against that, other than "They aren't evil against me(yet)".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @11:17AM
Yup.
...and we haven't yet mentioned how USA.gov uses drone strikes to overtly murder USAian citizens. [google.com]
The first SEAL team strike on Trump's watch murdered an 8 year old USAian citizen. [google.com]
(She was the sister of a 16 year old USAian citizen that was murdered by USA.gov on Obama's watch.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 26 2017, @08:08PM (13 children)
Because those peoples' labor was essential to the war effort against the freedom fighters? I don't think you quite get what the argument is.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Saturday August 26 2017, @08:34PM (12 children)
I think he does. I think that's backed up by mhajicek's response, just above you. Their disagreement seems, to me, to be over whether the ends can justify the means. Where mhajicek is ready to push the red button, hemocyanin blinks.
(Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:01PM (11 children)
The Just War Tradition made a distinction between combatants and non-combatants even when it come to material support. An armorer or swordsmith might be considered as directly contributing to the combat effectiveness of a soldier, but the farmer or tailor who only supplied to the soldier what was necessary to him as a human being was not taken to be materially supporting the war effort. So, in modern industrial warfare, ball-bearing plants, OK. Powdered milk factory? Off-limits. Don't trust khallow on matters like these. His thinking seems both dangerously twisted and naively ignorant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:54PM (2 children)
That's unfair. It never happens with khallow, for the simple reason he's not thinking, he's reflex arching.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Saturday August 26 2017, @11:02PM (1 child)
Fair point. I stand corrected.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:46AM
I also appear to be banned from moderating!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 27 2017, @04:17AM (7 children)
And yet you don't actually disagree on what little I wrote here. These frivolous games are tiresome, aristarchus.
Who only supplied the soldier what was necessary for the soldier to continue to wage war. Clothes and food have long been as necessary to an army as its weapons. Wars have been lost over the inability to provide these (a key example is Napoleon's failed invasion of Russia in 1812 which was the decisive turning point in the Napoleonic wars, both lack of food and winter clothing were key contributors to the destruction of the French army).
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday August 27 2017, @09:35AM (6 children)
Historically ignorant as usual, khallow! Why do not you just go back to school and study something beside math? A little history, some literature, legal theory, god forbid even art? You are a crippled man, your vision is too constricted by your lack of learning. What I said is true of the Just War Tradition, which ended more or less with the Religious wars of the 16th Century, particularly the Thirty Years War, ending with the Treaty of Westphalia. If you were not so ignorant, you would know that.
The regime of the ius gentium took over after that, but preserved many of the same principles. Not until WWI did the idea of Totalen Krieg [archive.org] come to the fore, courtesy of several corporations, and fore shadowed by the Great Conflict in America, which did indeed provide a template. So now, Nazis? Spouting Confederate ideology? And this does not make sense to you? As has been said before here on SN:
And chance you are related to this Arnaud, [wikipedia.org] khallow?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:27PM (5 children)
And yet we see the continuation of the "Just War" ideal with the Geneva Conventions. Those came well after the 16th Century.
Corporations like the French Third Republic or the German Empire which actually implemented said idea of total war. And your link is to a speech by Joseph Goebbels in 1943. At that time, he represented no private corporation, but instead was the Reich Minister of Propaganda for Nazi Germany during the whole of its existence. This is cluelessness at its most refined.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:25PM (4 children)
Well, you are a Connoisseur. Enjoy! But do check your history. Nothing of Just War in Geneva. Perogative of nation-states, and all that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 28 2017, @12:24AM (3 children)
Words without meaning. We can instead look at the characteristics of Just War and see the following [wikipedia.org]:
Every single item on this list found its way into the Geneva Conventions in some form.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 28 2017, @12:37AM (2 children)
Very good, khallow! Now, can you do the same for ius ad bellum and relate it all to DDOS attacks on a computer network? That would be very helpful.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 28 2017, @02:02AM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 28 2017, @04:42AM
No, you're not! Get back here, khallow! We are not done with your education yet! Oh, crap, where did callow run off to? I hope he's not hanging with the Nazis and white supremes again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:43PM
So I guess OP was right: Speaking from the USA: No.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Saturday August 26 2017, @08:24PM (2 children)
It's not just the RAF that were inaccurate. A (moderate) number of bombs were dropped on Anglesey and Snowdonia during the Second World War, by German pilots that got lost on their way to Liverpool and decided they didn't want to take the bombs back home again.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Whoever on Saturday August 26 2017, @09:14PM
The UK also used high-technology (for the time) radio jamming and distortion to send the German bombers off their designated target route. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:29PM
The difference is that the RAF made inaccuracy intentionally unimportant. They were area-bombing on purpose, because they could do little else.
At least the USAAF paid lip-service to precision strategic bombing until 1945.
(Score: 1, Troll) by qzm on Sunday August 27 2017, @02:49AM (2 children)
Almost exactly the opposite of this.
The RAF generally used low altitude 'surgical' strikes.
The USAF (which later organised most of the raids) were in favour of high altitude 'area saturation' raids.
Compare for example the Dam Busters raise versus the Dresden firebombing..
So no, the RAF could hit what they aimed at, the USAF was in favour of maximising collateral damage.
This generally continued until the emergence of guided/smart weapons.
Even in Iraq it was the RAF called in for low level accurate bombing purposes where smart/guided weapons would not work.
And, WTF is it with this BS summary anyway? Since when was WW2 comparible with these idiotic arseholes playing dick-size competitions in the streets and getting out of their depth?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @03:22AM
Are you deliberately trying to re-write history, or incredibly misinformed?
The Dam Buster raid was a one-off. Arthur Harris's 1000-bomber fire raids were the SOP.
The fire-bombings of Hamburg, Cologne, and Dresden were RAF night operations, with USAAF cooperation.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday August 28 2017, @05:28AM
Alternatively: the RAF found their daytime losses were too great to sustain, and concentrated on night time raids. When the USA joined in, the USAF were more than wrlcome to run their raids during the daytime, with the RAF continuing to operate at night. In order to stem losses, the (visible during the day) USAF went as high as they could to avoid AA fire. I doubt dropping bombs from altitude was much more inaccurate than dropping in the dark.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 27 2017, @06:20AM (1 child)
Unlike the USAF, whose skills at causing blue-on-blue engagements remain legendary wherever they go. :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @09:17AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire [wikipedia.org]