Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Entertainment Games

Videogame Character Threatens National Security? 396

Posted by simoniker
from the sonic-the-jailed-hog dept.
Watchful Babbler writes "Apparently, 'the lead item on the government's daily threat matrix one day last April' was clear and definite: a reclusive millionaire had formed a terrorist group with the intent of launching chemical weapons attacks on Western cities. The White House was notified and the Director of the FBI briefed as the government raced to find information. But then, according to USNews.com, a White House staffer decided to Google for information on suspected threat Don Emilio Fulci and found him -- in a video game - Sega's action title Headhunter. No word on exactly which sources and methods came up with this gem, but word in the E Ring is that Fulci had issued the cryptic warning, 'You have no chance to survive make your time'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Videogame Character Threatens National Security?

Comments Filter:
  • Is it me.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WarlockD (623872) on Monday May 10, 2004 @05:34PM (#9110940)
    ... or is terrorism winning?

    It certainly feels like evey time we get a false positive we panic.
  • Re:Is it me.... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 10, 2004 @05:37PM (#9110974)
    Yeah, it is, because of all the terror conveying statements made by our government/media.

    Wheres the flush lever?
  • by sPaKr (116314) on Monday May 10, 2004 @05:38PM (#9110988)
    If the US can so call intelligence community can be fooled into sending out alerts based on a Sega game how hard can it be fore AlQuda to send out false threats to yo-yo with the servalince. Since all this does is tell real people to do things sooner or later they will get tired and ignore the warnings thus allowing for a real threat to go further then it would without the DOS attack. I mean the terrorist aholes should start scaring people left and right, force the threat level up and down. How much risk is there to leak false intelligance.. then not follow through. Sooner or later we will get fed up, let our guard down and whamo they get a free ride. Jebus I really should wash my gray hat its looking darker and darker every day.
  • Re:Is it me.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stratjakt (596332) on Monday May 10, 2004 @05:50PM (#9111101) Journal
    The poster says the lead item on the government's daily threat matrix, in quotes as though he was quoting the article, which says no such thing.

    Keep in mind the nature of the source, sort of a tongue-in-cheek political gossip column as well.

    Some guy phoned in a tip, some low-level FBI grunt kicked it up the chain - as is his job. It was later found to be a hoax and thrown out. There was no panic or mayhem.

    This happens all the time, everyone from assholes to crazies phone in to report bad guys from movies, etc. I remember reading an article about the rash of calls law enforcement got after Silence of the Lambs came out - people actually thought Hannibal Lecter was a real guy.
  • I don't see how... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cranx (456394) on Monday May 10, 2004 @05:51PM (#9111109)
    I don't see how so many of you conclude that the government doesn't know a real threat from a video game character. A threat can crop up in any one of a gazillion ways. Once made, they have to verify threats before they take them seriously. They did. They determined it was a video game character.

    How else does it work? Magic? When a threat comes in, they use telepathic powers to determine that any given name is a real one and not a video game character? A quick google isn't to everyone's liking?

    Dumbasses.
  • by Max Threshold (540114) on Monday May 10, 2004 @05:55PM (#9111140)
    I'd be more afraid if the government weren't incompetent.
  • by gangien (151940) on Monday May 10, 2004 @05:55PM (#9111141) Homepage
    OK they recieved a tip that certainly, if true would be extremely serious, so they took it seriously and this makes you paranoid? It's good to know that our government takes threats seriously until they can be proven not to be serious, as in this case. Makes you lose sleep? well it makes me sleep better.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 10, 2004 @05:59PM (#9111168)
    Could it be that you are all being had? Did anyone here bother to cross-examine the validity of this story or do any research? I guess when Slashdotters take things on faith they *must* be right because, well, that's just how the world works. Facts are facts because they fulfill our wildest fantasies.

    *sigh*
  • Re:Is it me.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lpangelrob2 (721920) on Monday May 10, 2004 @06:05PM (#9111216) Journal
    Okay, fair deal. You try being National Security Advisor for a day.

    It's their job to separate real threats from, well, fantasy threats. It always has, and they happened to suck it up one September day three years ago. Repeatedly, may I add.

    What's the alternative? Close your eyes and hope? Iraq or not, September 11 or not, there's always going to be someone that doesn't like America, and there will always be people shouting "1984" when the gov't decides to do something, and people holding pictures of loved ones killed by terrorists when the gov't doesn't prevent incidents.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

  • by Jussi K. Kojootti (646145) on Monday May 10, 2004 @06:05PM (#9111220)
    When I just googled, I saw nothing of the like... only 3 results, the usnews article was the top then some french article I didn't bother to read.
    Well, just looking at the title would have been enough: "Headhunter".
    As a sidenote, I don't know any french, but the first paragraphs are still pretty easy to understand: "Headhunter est donc un Metal Gear-like (ou un jeu d'action infiltration, si vous preferez) edité par Sega." (ok, 'Metal Gear-like' might not be french)
  • competence (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday May 10, 2004 @06:15PM (#9111298) Homepage Journal
    The alternative is to eliminate nonsense threats, like videogame villains, before they top the threat matrix. That's what security professionals do. Apparently not what the BushCo incompetents do. You trusted them on September 11, 2001, you trust them now, don't be surprised when you get screwed again.
  • by corbettw (214229) <corbettw AT yahoo DOT com> on Monday May 10, 2004 @06:19PM (#9111327) Journal
    Of a very knee-jerk reaction to security here in the US

    Knee-jerk in what way? I don't remember Fulci being placed at the top of the Most Wanted List. Was there an APB put out for him? Did Bush get in front of the microphones and say we had a new, greater, enemy in the war on terror? No, some nutjob phoned in a "tip", and after it went through various channels someone discovered it was a hoax. It happens all the time, nothing to see here, move along.
  • by corbettw (214229) <corbettw AT yahoo DOT com> on Monday May 10, 2004 @06:22PM (#9111352) Journal
    +1, Ironic. You claim the government is overreacting by shouting in hysterics because someone phoned in a hoax tip which was subsequently proven to be a hoax and dropped. Go outside, take a breath of fresh air, and relax for pity's sake.
  • Re:Aha! (Score:0, Insightful)

    by cheezedawg (413482) on Monday May 10, 2004 @06:30PM (#9111445) Journal
    You do realize that it was never a question of if Iraq had WMD's or not. The world saw him use them, for cryin out loud. The only question that remains is what he did with them. He was supposed to show the world proof that he destroyed the weapons. That never happened.
  • by Black Cardinal (19996) on Monday May 10, 2004 @06:54PM (#9111663) Homepage
    From the (extremely brief) article it sounds like the system put in place to evaluate threats worked. A potential threat was identified somehow, then dismissed once it was turned out to be a nonthreat. Its not like any action beyond evaluation was taken. Even if the "potential threat" in this case was a videogame character, I would prefer to have a human being make that call then let some automated search engine do the screening based on some rules. Whatever automated system they are using is probably only designed to identify potential threats, not evaluate them.
  • Imminent Threat (Score:3, Insightful)

    by copponex (13876) on Monday May 10, 2004 @07:13PM (#9111830) Homepage
    No, the questions were:

    1. Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction that can be used against the United States?

    2. Is Iraq planning to use those weapons?

    As is plainly evident, even to the man the Bush Administration hired to find the weapons couldn't find them, and I've seen no document saying that Iraq was planning an attack.

    I think we all remember Colin Powell circling some stuff on a map, and then holding up a vial saying, "They have this here." Well, where the did "here" go?

    What about North Korea? They actually have a nuclear program, and a dictator who has directly threatened the US. What about Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from, and home to bin Laden and many terrorist organizations funded by the Saudi Government?

    Bush doesn't have any balls. He'll attack a country that has virtually no defense (Afghanistan) or a country that we've been bombing for 10 years (Iraq), but not so much as cut diplomatic ties with the nation that 80% of the 911 terrorists originated from (Saudi Arabia).

    I don't think Bush is evil, but he is incompetent and short sighted. Not too great of a choice for President.
  • Re:Imminent Threat (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cheezedawg (413482) on Monday May 10, 2004 @07:44PM (#9112050) Journal
    1. Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction that can be used against the United States?

    He had weapons. The world told him to show proof that he had disarmed. He didn't. The only safe assumption a Commander in Chief could make based on that evidence is that he still has the weapons. Anthrax just does not dissappear, after all.

    2. Is Iraq planning to use those weapons?

    Sometimes I wonder if people are listening to the same President Bush. Both Bush and Blair were very clear that we must act BEFORE Iraq can plan to use the weapons- BEFORE they became an immenent threat. Its too late to act if he already has a gun pointed at our head. Iraq has known terrorist connections- they have been on the State Dept list of Terror Sponsering States for 15 years. We should have acted against that threat a lot sooner than we did.

    What about North Korea?

    Unlike North Korea,

    Iraq was in violation of 17 Chapter VII UN resolutions as well as the cease-fire from the first Gulf War that required them to disarm

    Iraq had shown that they are willing to use their WMDs

    Iraq had just tried to illegally expand their borders

    Iraq is sitting on some of the richest natural resources in the world to finance almost anything that they would like.

    There is still a lot of diplomacy that the world can try in North Korea.

    What about Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from, and home to bin Laden and many terrorist organizations funded by the Saudi Government?

    McVeigh was from New York- should we invade New York also? At least Saudi Arabia revoked bin Laden's citizenship. Unless maybe you have some special insider knowledge about the Saudi Royal family?

    Bush doesn't have any balls.

    I am glad that the man in charge of protecting our national security DOES have the balls to act when necessary.

  • Yeah, those sound like objective, non-politically motivated quotes. I have it on good sources that:

    "mozumder cannot tell the difference between a qualitative analysis, and something that was taken out of a book designed to slam bush."

    "Muzumder is alltogether willing to abandon common sense, and accept that bush doesn't know anything at all about the rather broad topic of 'policy'"

    "Muzumder has an axe to grind, but uses a very soft stone. Consequently, he ends up looking like a jackass."

    Just because someone said something, even if it was in print, does not make it so. I never liked Clinton, in fact, I was one of the haters, but I never did anything so foolish as to suggest he was going to suspend national elections, like so many tinfoil hat conservatives did. Why? Because the idea is preposterous on the face of it. Is bush an eloquent speaker? Clearly he is not. Do you believe for one second that he does not have any knowledge of anything that could fall under the heading "policy"? If so, you are the fool, not bush. For an administration to contain a cabinet as diverse in opinion as his does, yet to not consider diverse viewpoints would be rather self-defeating, wouldn't it?

    Observation of the Polical scene requires thought, and examination. Quotes from the preface of a book whose entire purpose is to slam Bush do not qualify for the former, nor the latter. Dunce cap for you slappy.
  • Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AEton (654737) on Monday May 10, 2004 @08:26PM (#9112369)
    Slightly offtopic but coincides with this thread: that was (as we could guess) a hoax. Ix-nay on the +4 formative-innay.
    Viral marketing [findarticles.com] like the "Beta-7.com" campaign is SO FSCKING ANNOYING.
    You can picture these balding, gray-suited marketing executives sitting around the Table of the Round going "hey! having an Internet site about our product will make people buy it!". In fact all they manage to do is remind us that nothing you read on the Interweb is trustworthy - which is a fine postmodernist lesson - but I don't appreciate being treated as a commodity.
    Like the /. sig says, we're citizens, not consumers, and I'm a little disappointed that people would reward such a company for finely polished attempts at mind control like the ones it satirized by buying into their product.
  • It's not just you (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) on Monday May 10, 2004 @08:41PM (#9112499) Homepage
    History shows that war on any common noun does not go well. Where are we with the war on drugs? How's that war on poverty going?

    For a war to really get traction and be effect it needs to be against a Person or Place, not just a Thing.
  • Re:Imminent Threat (Score:3, Insightful)

    by copponex (13876) on Monday May 10, 2004 @09:19PM (#9112773) Homepage
    He had weapons.
    In the early nineties, sure. And then nearly all of it was destroyed, correct? By the U.N.? Did he a) have weapons in 2003 and b) directly threatened the United States, and did he c) have the technological capability to achieve that threat?

    The world told him to show proof that he had disarmed. He didn't. The only safe assumption a Commander in Chief could make based on that evidence is that he still has the weapons. Anthrax just does not dissappear, after all.
    So, if I ask Cuba to show me proof that it has no military capability to attack the US, and they don't comply, my only option is to invade the country?

    Sometimes I wonder if people are listening to the same President Bush.
    I heard he can talk even when Cheney drinks water.

    Both Bush and Blair were very clear that we must act BEFORE Iraq can plan to use the weapons- BEFORE they became an immenent threat. Its too late to act if he already has a gun pointed at our head.
    Owning a gun is not a crime. Pointing it at someone is. Or, does this only apply to oil-bearing nations?

    Iraq has known terrorist connections- they have been on the State Dept list of Terror Sponsering States for 15 years. We should have acted against that threat a lot sooner than we did.
    Here are the others on that list: Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. How many of those countries were involved in the 9-11 attacks? Oh, that's right - none. Something tells me we need a new list.

    Iraq was in violation of 17 Chapter VII UN resolutions as well as the cease-fire from the first Gulf War that required them to disarm. Iraq had shown that they are willing to use their WMDs.
    Sounds like a UN problem to me. We acted unilaterally because? And they had used WMDs on foreigners when? I mean, besides the Iran war where the Reagan Administration trained them and sold them their first WMDs.

    If I remember correctly, a nation is allowed to do whatever it wants inside it's own borders. Little thing those "big-time reporters" call sovereignty.

    Iraq had just tried to illegally expand their borders...
    Which threatened the US in what way?

    Iraq is sitting on some of the richest natural resources in the world to finance almost anything that they would like.
    Again, if you find the pieces needed to make a bomb inside my house - like alcohol, fertilizer, and household cleaners - it doesn't mean that I'm going to make a bomb. If you find plans to make one, and a hit list, and a preperation area, then you can arrest me for conspiring. You can't kill people if they have "the ability to conspire." It's too vague, and basically is a license to kill anyone the government doesn't like.

    McVeigh was from New York- should we invade New York also? At least Saudi Arabia revoked bin Laden's citizenship. Unless maybe you have some special insider knowledge about the Saudi Royal family?
    Well, if fifteen people from New York City area were involved, I'd want some action from the NYPD. The Saudis did not see a single bad word out of Bush's mouth. They revoked bin Laden's citizenship in 1994, not after 9-11. After 9-11, not a single person in Saudi Arabia was arrested and delivered to the US. Is it your belief that the only people from Saudi Arabia involved in the attacks were the original 15?

    I am glad that the man in charge of protecting our national security DOES have the balls to act when necessary.
    Iraq, besides the two Gulf wars, has killed zero US Citizens. Al Queda killed 3,000, and so far, in a year of occupation, no document has linked Al Queda and the old Iraqi government. Saudi Arabia didn't receive so much as a slap on the wrists.

    Bush has the balls to look like he has balls, but that's about it.
  • Save you indignation until after we come to a collective realization that the trillions of dollars spend on Missile defense and the War on Drugs were also a giant waste of money. In some sense, worse than a waste of money. Cracking down on drugs simply made the profit margin insane. Going off and actively researching missile defense involved shredding a few disarmerment treaties with the Russians (not to mention pissing them off.)

    Back on the subject, information by it's very definition is measured by it's surprise. The approach taken by the TIA should really be called the "Total Data Awareness." They think that by viewing massive quantities of the ordinary will reveal the extraordinary.

    They forget that databases can't file the extraordinary. All of the tips, leads, and missed clues were people noticing that something didn't jive, something didn't fit. Computers can't do that. At least not unaided.

  • Re:competence (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Trepalium (109107) on Monday May 10, 2004 @11:30PM (#9113641)
    Actually, it's not my country, but that's beside the point. I still have to live in this same world, after all. I guess I didn't make this clear, but don't think I disagree with you. I was simply taken back by your hostility and anger towards the AC.

    Now, my only point was the sheer level of hostility in your post, combined with some use of the retoric (the T-word and implying the anon poster was anti-american) of the pro-Bush, 'My Country Right or Wrong', camp was inspiring. IMO, it illustrates how meaningless those words have become. That people's opinions are discounted by simply calling them 'Unpatriotic' because they dare question the government.

    Now, what I find ridiculous about this situation is the two sides of the war. Anti-Bush people who can seem to be unable to criticize anything about Bush except for his intelligence (or lack thereof), and the pro-Bush people who criticize anyone who doesn't agree with Bush as unpatriotic. They've become caricatures all to themselves. How can anyone take either side seriously, I wonder.

    Since I'm a Canadian citizen, I can laugh off most silly charges of me being Anti-American. Frankly it's neither an insult or a complement to me. I have even been told that I have no right to speak on these topics. Even throughout the Maher Arar [www.cbc.ca] deportation by US authorities (perhaps with the Canadian government's blessings) to Syria to be tortured, some people maintained that no one had the right to say anything about this except for the US government. Can't break this glass house they live in, or the entire world they live in might come crumbling down.

    I have my doubts about the justice that Maher will get with the inquiry about his case that's going on. After all, what can you really expect when the RCMP raid a reporter's house [www.cbc.ca] after she dug up some secret documents on the case.

  • Re:Imminent Threat (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sterno (16320) on Monday May 10, 2004 @11:38PM (#9113697) Homepage
    1) Actually, many of the weapons he had do just dissapear. Many of the nerve toxins, etc, will degrade over time.

    2) As for an imminent threat, Saddam was never a threat, imminent or otherwise.

    Time for a little lesson about the concept of mutually assured destruction. The lesson that should have been learned from 9/11 that was not, was that non-state actors can be a serious threat to our country. Saddam has one motivating interest, his own power.

    Let's assume, for the moment, that he got himself some nukes, and some how got the ability to deliver them to New York. Like really high tech deliver so that he could track the delivery and see who signed for it. What would he do with it? He can't use them against us because we would wipe him out. He can't use them against any enemies in the area, we would wipe him out. The only thing that they do is keep us from going for the throat when attacking him.

    What's that you say? He might have given the weapons to Al Qaeda? Well I'll skip the fact that Al Qaeda hates him, and get to the simple point that it would be fantastically stupid. Let's say he gave the weapons to Al Qaeda and they used them on the US. What then? Remember how well that sort of shit worked out for the Taliban? Hell, the Taliban screwed up so bad that Saddam got dragged in when he had NOTHING to do with it.

    We can afford to wait til he points a gun if we know where he is and we can match his gun with a bazooka.

    3) "Iraq has known terrorist connections- they have been on the State Dept list of Terror Sponsering States for 15 years." They are at best a retirement home for a few terrorists. The closest they've come to a terrorist attack was a terribly bungled assassination attempt of Bush Sr. Their intelligence service is, notoriously, one of the least effective in the world.

    As for the state sponsors of terrorism list, it's utter hogwash. Cuba's on that list. When was the last time they tried to engage in terrorism. The US has conducted more terrorism in Cuba than they have here.

    4) "Iraq had just tried to illegally expand their borders" Well, north korea can't really do that since the only borders they have to expand into are China, their only friend, and South Korea, who we back. This would get back into that mutually assured destruction concept I mentioned earlier.

    5) "Iraq is sitting on some of the richest natural resources in the world to finance almost anything that they would like" Not if the rest of the world refuses to sell anything to them.

    6) As to the state of Bush's cojones, I've got no argument. But frankly I'd like to have a president with the brains to keep his cojones in check. Serial killers have cajones. The 9/11 terrorists had cajones. Cajones are a dangerous thing without a little bit of logic and reason.
  • by 1u3hr (530656) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @12:09AM (#9113874)
    When I just googled, I saw nothing of the like... only 3 results,

    Google Search: "Don Fulci" [google.com] Results 1 - 10 of about 81 for "Don Fulci".
    PSXNATION: Run by a crack team of hardcore gamers.
    NTSC-uk review > Dreamcast > Headhunter
    GamePartisan.com | Sony | Review
    etc...

  • by willtsmith (466546) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @12:53AM (#9114068) Journal
    I am glad that the man in charge of protecting our national security DOES have the balls to act when necessary.

    Yeah, hindsight is 20/20. But memos titled "Bin Ladin determined to strike in the US" tend to elicit some activity. It could generate a question like, "Hey Ashcroft, is this the reason you only fly private charter now????"

    Ascroft's response of course would be ... "No, It's because I de-prioritized counter-terrorism efforts. Bin Ladin has nothing to do with it. In fact I'm in the process of dismantling existing intelligence gathering efforts. For example, I cancelled the investigation on the USS Cole and forced that nosy FBI agent to come home. We booted his ass and he works at the World Trade Center now."

    The President's Response: "I thought I told you to shut down all those investigations against my old Bin Ladin buddies. You know them and my daddy go way back. They're really ticked that some of our agents are trying to shut down their charities. Make sure that money keeps flowing. It's how they fund their little brother Osama."

    Condaleeza Rice: "Mr President, would you like me to read the report to you again????"

    President: "No. 11 pages is way too long. Make sure you redact it so if I have to remember it again, it will only be two pages. Just cut out the nine in the middle. Yeah, and get Dick on the phone. I have to figure out how the Iraq war plan is going. Did we end up giving most the oil to Exxon or Shell????"

    Of course, the morning of 9/11 your beloved hero was very vigilant in protecting our nation. He knew about the diverted planes BEFORE he left the hotel. He knew about the first strike BEFORE he went into the classroom. A reporter asked him if he knew what was going on in New York, he responded "Yeah, I saw that on TV, that was a pretty bad pilot".

    Tick, tock, tick, tock, buzzzz. You can see the engine creaking inside the presidents mind. But he doesn't put two and two together. In fact, along the line he must have issued an order for the Air Force to STAND DOWN. Otherwise, all the jets would have been INTERCEPTED as per standard operating procedure (Google Payne Stewart Plane Crash).

    Big ball, no brain Bush goes into a classroom and sits on his ass reading to 2nd graders while our nation it under attack. Than, he is informed that a SECOND plane hits the World Trade Center. Big dummy still hasn't figured it out .... WE'RE UNDER ATTACK!!!!! Either that, or big balled dummy knew and was VERY PLEASED.

    Nevertheless, big balled dummey sits in a classroom for another 15 minutes and finishes the goat story. It's so rare that the President is among his intellectual peers. I'm sure he relishes those precious moments.

    OK big balled dummy, what do we do. Do you rescind your stand down order that prevented planes from scrambling. Nope, not yet. Plane #3 hasn't struck yet. Don't believe the lies. Do you seriously believe that planes capable of travelling 1500 miles an hour stationed just outside the capital would be unable to intercept the Pentagon airliner????????

    Are we stupid??? Is the military this utterly inept???? I don't believe so. If they were, the Soviets would have leveled our nation a LONG time ago.

    After all the stupidity on the morning of 9/11, the President makes a brave call to "authorize" shooting down the Pennsylvania plane. How brave he is since he could have prevented the fall of WTC 1, as well as saving the lives of people in the Pentagon. Had he not issued a stand down warning, he could have saved WTC 1 as well.

    Who knows, he might have even prevented WTC 7 from mysteriously imploding for no apparent reason.

    On to Afghanistan. Does Bush have the Balls to see the Afghan campaign through???? Does he have the balls to put large numbers of boots on the ground to catch his old family friend Osama Bin Ladin??????

    Nope. Bush is more concerned with Saddam Hussein. He was obsessed from day one.
  • Re:Imminent Threat (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fucksl4shd0t (630000) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @02:08AM (#9114300) Homepage Journal

    Cuba is not under international orders to disarm with an authorization to use military force to get them to comply, and Cuba has not shown a willingness to use WMDs in the past.

    Man, oh man, is history ever repeating itself. The only difference is that there isn't a superpower opposite the US in polarity to help out Iraq. What we just did in Iraq we would have gladly done to Cuba in 1960. In fact, we tried it. Then Cuba got some nukes from the Soviet Union, and what happened?

    That's right, we couldn't pick on them any longer.

    I'm so glad you mentioned Cuba, WMDs and so forth. We made invasion noises at Cuba immediately after Castro showed up, very similar to how we've been making invasion noises at Iraq for some time. Of course Saddam was looking for some way to deter us from invading his country.

    Now, I'm not trying to take Saddam's side in this, I just don't think Bush should've gone in there so soon. I would have preferred giving the poor dictator more rope to hang himself with. Running around like a chicken with its head cut off is a good way to get the US in some pretty deep shit, and I'd prefer it if our president would cut it out. Also, running around trying to invade every nation for "fear of terrorism" is in fact a symptom that we have already lost the war against terror. Yep, we've already lost. We're scared shitless and firing our guns at anything that moves.

    Take the red off the Texas flag Bush claims, apparently we don't have any bravery anymore.

  • Re:Imminent Threat (Score:3, Insightful)

    by grozzie2 (698656) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @02:40AM (#9114374)
    The chemical weapons he has used in Iran did not come from us. They came from either Japan or Germany.

    The chemical weapons used in iran came in 2 forms. The first form was aerial delivery. American supplied chemicals were delivered from american supplied helicopters, originally justified as 'crop dusters'. The second form came as mortar shells. American made chemical shells were fired from german made mortars. The german supplier of the mortars brokered and acted as middle man in the purchase of the shells for those mortars.

    Another interesting 'point of interest', there were WMD used during gulf war 2nd edition. They came in the form of anti tank shells made up of depleted uranium, and there is a considerable inventory of those things in iraq today. They are american made, and in use by the american military. Thier radioactive nature has them officially qualified as WMD by the UN doctrines that define such things.

    So, it's actually quite easy to find WMD in iraq today, just go look in the munitions supply at all the american locations holding any significant number of tanks.

    But, the hypocracy of this whole thing really starts to show now. The american forces in iraq are holding Saddam on various and sundry charges, things like his jailors would torture and kill prisoners. The shoe is on the other foot now, still waiting to see GW in jail cuz his jailors are torturing prisoners. As they say, what's good for the goose...

  • by jamonterrell (517500) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @12:01PM (#9117298)
    Okay, to take my theory that we got trolled a little bit further for those who didn't bother to at least stop and think about it.

    There are a couple of a problems with this kind of story:
    1.) It's very sensational and funny. Something you woudln't expect to happen but 'did'.
    2.) It's only being carried by ONE news site. Something this humorous and blunderous that has such far reaching claims of incompotency in our intelligence departments should have made bigger news. Why didn't it? The other news agencies did not or could not collaborate it. Either it's true and was successfully burried or it never happened.
    3.) There are little to no details about why/how this made it to the top of the "terror threat matrix." One anonymous tip? Come on, as much as it's funny to think that our intelligence departments are stupid, do you really believe they're THAT stupid?
    4.) Why did finding the name in a game have any bearing on whether this person was a threat? The FBI didn't drop their case against Cap'n Crunch when they found out he was just a cereal advertising cartoon character, did they?

    I'd expect to be reading this in an e-mail titled "Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Re: Game character plots terror attack against USA." Not on slashdot. We should be the experts on trolling, not the ones to feed it.
    Jamon.

    Btw, Someone needs to remind these moderators that moderation is not for making your opinion heard or making the oponents opinion heard, it's to promote easily reading discussion on the topic without having to sift through trolls, flaimbait, and offtopic posts. And I urge anyone who meta-moderates to help us clear out people who abuse the moderation system as a way to filter their opinions upon everyone else.

APL hackers do it in the quad.

Working...