Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Other subjects

War - what does it really mean ?

271 replies

Tillysmummy · 18/03/2003 09:50

Im feeling very worried and sad about this today. Is anyone else feeling like this - silly question im sure most people are. I am very nervous about the implications. Its amazing how since having my daughter all these emotions and fears are heightened I guess out of an instinct to protect her.
I'd be very interested in other's opinions and feelings.

OP posts:
mum2toby · 20/03/2003 10:55

True Phillipat.... good point!

GeorginaA · 20/03/2003 11:14

Sorry Croppy - you misunderstood me. Iraqi's do have access to the internet. Both the UK and US ignored that side of the sanctions.

Interesting Salon article regarding the ease of hacking into Iraq's internet as a result of the current internet provision

Mind you, the plug has probably been pulled now

Croppy · 20/03/2003 11:22

As I understand it, very few Iraqi's have access to anything other than the state sponsored "internet", i.e. not the global internet and that access is subject to state intervention.

This following article sums up what I have read in many different publications.

Until 1999, ordinary Iraqis did not have access to the Internet. That was not entirely the fault of the Iraqi government. UN-imposed trade sanctions made it impossible to import the necessary technical equipment. Now the government allows individuals to access the Net, albeit only via its own service provider (the State Company for Internet Services) which trades as uruklink.net. Only in quasi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan is the Web largely free of official censorship.

The Iraqi government sees the Internet as a form of getting information from abroad, and as a source of income through charging relatively high fees to use the Internet. Even so it's cheaper to send an e-mail than make a phone call in Iraq.

Internet cafes
The first state-run Internet cafe opened in July 2000, and there were around 60 by the start of 2003. Those who can afford it are allowed to have Internet connections at home. The cost is 50,000 Iraqi dinars (about US$25) for three months, with an additional charge for each e-mail message. A locally built computer costs around US$600. That's beyond the means of most ordinary Iraqis, who prefer to use the Internet cafes where typically they can surf the net for 500 Dinars (about 25 US cents) per session.

But at least some Iraqis now have direct access to information from outside the country, though there's no doubt that the authorities closely monitor their online activity. There's a degree of official censorship too. Iraqis cannot access Web sites whose contents are considered "contradictory to Islamic law." Any Iraqi clicking on a link to a site that contains sexual or pornographic material is receives an "Access Denied" message. Also banned are the sites of Iraqi opposition groups, and some US government sites. Iraqis are not allowed to open E-mail accounts with commercial providers outside Iraq, such as Hotmail and Yahoo! Unexplained disruptions to service still occur, probably more for political than technical reasons.

Iraqi Web sites
There are relatively few Web sites produced inside Iraq for the outside world, all of them by the Iraqi government and institutions. They are linked from the Home Page of Uruklink. Ironically, one of the sites is for the Iraq Tourism Board. Note from the screen shot below that they have pages in 'Dutche' (sic) which in fact turns out to be German.

The Web site of the Iraqi News Agency has a substantial section in English, though when we checked the latest headlines were three days old, suggesting that stories have to go through a rigorous checking procedure before they're published.

The Iraq Satellite Channel affair
The Iraqi Internet infrastructure has been set up with scant attention to efficiency and security. This is amply demonstrated by what happened to the Web site of the Iraq Satellite Channel, Iraq's international TV service. On 18 February 2003, a routine check by Media Network showed that the site appeared to have been hacked. During 2002, we had been able to watch the channel in streaming video at www.iraqtv.ws. But we were surprised to find that the content had been replaced by a Christian fundamentalist message (see screenshot on right).

Media Network's Lou Josephs and Sheila Lennon of the Providence Journal managed to track down the person responsible, American James Poole. It turns out that he had discovered the domain registration had expired, and a quick piece of thinking allowed him to reregister it.

Quick Thinking
"I don't know if they let it lapse or just never got it up off the ground," said Poole. "I was scanning their sites looking for some weakness or vulnerability, and discovered that they had a link to their satellite service that was not registered at that point, so I registered the link and put up my own site. I registered the site on Sunday, Feb 16 and the fact that my link is still imbedded on the site tells me that someone over there is helping me, either out of fear or agreement. I have received one threat by E-mail but many positive messages of encouragement, even one in French and one short letter of appreciation from an Arabic sounding name."

Poole was able to take advantage of the fact that the State Company for Internet Services (SCIS), uses just two foreign companies to handle nearly all its Internet access. One is American (Atlanta International Teleport of Douglasville, Ga.), and the other is British (SMS Internet of Rugby, Warwickshire). This arrangement came about when SCIS approached ARABSAT to obtain Internet access. ARABSAT contracts its Internet service from various commercial companies, which happen to include AIT and SMS. In theory, the US and Britain could shut down Iraq's internet access if they wanted to, simply by ordering AIT and SMS to switch off the connection.

Opposition Sites
Most Iraqi-related sites operating in the west are either independent or run by opposition groups supporting the goal of regime change in Iraq. Some of them have suffered denial of service attacks and other inconveniences. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has not ruled out the possibility that some of the denial of service attacks are the work of pro-Baghdad hackers. But this seems unlikely as the general level of Internet expertise in Iraq remains low. A more likely scenario is that US citizens, unable to grasp the complexities of Iraqi politics, were behind most of the attacks. It is, of course, politically expedient for the Bush administration to claim that cyber attacks by Iraq, Al Qaeda and other 'undesirable' elements, are a threat to US security. At the same time, the FBI has warned US hackers to desist from "patriotic hacking", as it is a crime and could even backfire.

Cyberwar
In January, the US Defense Department began sending thousands of e-mail messages to Leaders of the Iraqi military, warning them that that they would sustain heavy losses unless they defied Saddam Hussein. This is very much the same message as the psyop radio broadcasts. It's believed that the 193rd Special Operations Wing of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard, which operates Information Radio, and the CIA were involved in the e-mail campaign. They used the services of Iraqi defectors to contact former colleagues and urge them to cooperate with US forces. These are extracts from some of the messages:

"If you provide information on weapons of mass destruction or you take steps to hamper their use, we will do what is necessary to protect you and protect your families. Failing to do that will lead to grave personal consequences."
"If you take part in the use of these ugly weapons, you'll be regarded as war criminals. If you can make these weapons ineffective, then do it. If you can identify the position of weapons of mass destruction by light signals, then do it. If all this is not possible, then at least refuse to take part in any activity or follow orders to use weapons of mass destruction."
"Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear weapons violate Iraq's commitment to agreements and United Nations resolutions. Iraq has been isolated because of this behaviour. The United States and its allies want the Iraqi people to be liberated from Saddam's injustice and for Iraq to become a respected member of the international community. Iraq's future depends on you."
It's not clear if any of the messages reached their intended recipients, as all Internet traffic reaching Iraq is monitored and is filtered through uruklink.net.

Read more:

Monitoring the crisis

Links

Philippat · 20/03/2003 11:28

GeorginaA, thank you for posting that article - one of the most interesting things I have read during this crisis.

suedonim · 20/03/2003 11:37

I think it's possible to be against the war yet still support our forces. Even Robin Cook supports them though he doesn't agree with the war. He said in his resignation speech "It is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops. It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk" (obviously, that was before the war began.) I guess I'm agreeing with what Susanmt is saying, really.

The antiwar side can still be supportive of troops, because not to do so is surely to say that their lives are less valuable and therefore it is okay to have a war because if they die, it's no great loss.

I just hope desperately that this is over as quickly and painlessly as possible, because it's a horrible, horrible thing for everyone.

Jimjams · 20/03/2003 12:07

Yes exactly I'm antiwar but still supportive of troops. In fact I feel for them and their families more because I think this war is pointless.

Quick story. When my uncle was in the Falklands he worked on helicopters. They picked up the wounded and PoW's. After one PoW pick-up one of the Argentinians asked him for a cigarette. My uncle found him one and then commented on his excellent English. Turned out until a few months previously he'd lived in the my Uncle's home town. They chatted about pubs. Now I'm sure that both men would far rather have been sitting in one of those pubs sharing a beer rather than trying to kill each other. This isn't to argue about the right or wrongs of the Falklands (personally I don't think we had much choice) but just to say that war is created by politicians, but they're not the ones putting their lives at risk.

So I am anti the politics of this war, and I don't think we should be there, but I am very much behind the troops.

seahorse · 20/03/2003 12:58

Jimjams

I don't agree with your view but thanks for wording it in a sensitive and well reasoned way -unlike some of the previous ones on this thread.

Someone previously mentioned that if all world leaders were mums the world would be a better place - so los of Maggie Ts then (could be worse you see!)

mum2toby · 20/03/2003 13:00

Oh!!! Perish the though Jimjams!!!!

mum2toby · 20/03/2003 13:01

OOOOOPS!! Meant to say 'Perish the thought SEAHORSE' .....not Jimjams.

Philippat · 20/03/2003 13:39

Oh dear, yes, seahorse, hadn't thought of that!

Katherine · 20/03/2003 15:26

Hard to believe that Sadam himself is a dad isn't it!

titchy · 20/03/2003 16:29

Interesting Croppy about how much of the Internet is censored in Iraq - if they can stop access to sites they deem unsuitable why can't our ISP's?

Croppy · 20/03/2003 16:44

Don't ask me, I'm no expert. All I've read says that most Iraqi's only have access to the Iraqi state run web and cannot access international sites. But this is by no means unusual, China and many countries restrict what people can access on the net although not to the extent that Iraq seems to.

Croppy · 20/03/2003 16:48

I can't see how a dictatorship could survive if the population had full Internet access. My employers successfully filter our web access. Found this on China:

The authors are collecting data on the methods, scope, and depth of selective barriers to Internet access through Chinese networks. Tests from May 2002 through November 2002 indicate at least four distinct and independently operable methods of Internet filtering, with a documentable leap in filtering sophistication beginning in September 2002. The authors document thousands of sites rendered inaccessible using the most common and longstanding filtering practice. These sites were found through connections to the Internet by telephone dial-up link and through proxy servers in China. Once so connected, the authors attempted to access approximately two hundred thousand web sites. The authors tracked 19,032 web sites that were inaccessible from China on multiple occasions while remaining accessible from the United States. Such sites contained information about news, politics, health, commerce, and entertainment. See highlights of blocked pages. The authors conclude (1) that the Chinese government maintains an active interest in preventing users from viewing certain web content, both sexually explicit and non-sexually explicit; (2) that it has managed to configure overlapping nationwide systems to effectively if at times irregularly block such content from users who do not regularly seek to circumvent such blocking; and (3) that such blocking systems are becoming more refined even as they are likely more labor- and technology-intensive to maintain than cruder predecessors.

sml2 · 20/03/2003 18:21

Seahorse ? I am not sure what that crack contributes to the discussion. It certainly doesn?t persuade me that I should support British soldiers simply because they are British. The point about volunteers is that they made a choice to go into the army originally.

Ding ? that?s laughable. In fact, there is every chance that their actions are exposing me to greater risk from future terrorist attacks ? and to add insult to injury, they are using my taxes to help fund themselves. I wonder how many deaths on both sides, of soldiers and civilians my money will have helped to fund before this is over?

Gosh2 ? Mindless patriotism is the argument that we should support British soldiers in what they?re doing even if we think it?s wrong, simply because they are British. Your original comment was that it made you sick to know that someone felt more sorry for innocent children than for volunteer soldiers, simply because the soldiers are British. This is a morally bankrupt argument which I cannot support. I feel sorry for the British soldiers, but with the caveat that they joined the army from choice and are adults who know what they are doing. I feel sorry for the Iraqi soldiers who are defending their homeland against an invader. I feel sorry for all civilians affected on both sides as well, because they are human beings.

Why on earth do you have to bring into it what you would tell to someone whose husband had not returned? It would certainly not be the moment to remind her that history may well judge her dh to have partaken in a war crime! However, this doesn?t mean that the rights and wrongs of the war shouldn?t be discussed in a forum like this, and to suggest otherwise is emotional blackmail.

Croppy, hmb, gracie ?with respect, I suggest that you study a politics text book and learn exactly what is a democracy and what is a dictatorship. The popular press usually uses democracy = good and dictatorship = bad, but the truth is rather more complex than that. You may find that your views on what the most desirable system of government is would change if you were better informed. Also, take a long hard think about where exactly the power lies in Britain, and how that compares with textbook democracy.

Croppy ? does your last posting imply that your employers are dictators??!

hmb · 20/03/2003 18:26

Don't patronise me Sml2, and don't bother to preface it with a mealy mouthed 'with respect'. I know that life is complicated and if you read my posts carefullt you wll see that, If you take anyone elses ideas on board that is. Which I rather doubt.

hmb · 20/03/2003 18:32

I also suggest that you stop insinuating that my Dh would take part in a war crime.

hmb · 20/03/2003 18:54

And please provide evidence to support

'uses democracy = good and dictatorship = bad, but the truth is rather more complex than that'

Please supply us with a list of dictatorship you feel have been good.

And also the list of journalists that TB (AKA the dictator) has excecuted for being rude to CB, that I asked for in an earlier post

sml2 · 20/03/2003 18:57

hmb, I am sorry that you think I am patronising you. But it is difficult to discuss democracy/dictatorship with people who clearly don't know what these terms actually refer to.

Perhaps you are not aware that outside the US and her few allies, many people consider this war to be illegal? If you are truly convinced of its legality and rightness, why are you so angry about me expressing differing views, to the point of wishing to curtail my freedom of speech?

sml2 · 20/03/2003 18:59

hmb, I am sorry that you think I am patronising you. But it is difficult to discuss democracy/dictatorship with people who clearly don't know what these terms actually refer to.

Perhaps you are not aware that outside the US and her few allies, many people consider this war to be illegal? If you are truly convinced of its legality and rightness, why are you so angry about me expressing differing views, to the point of wishing to curtail my freedom of speech?

sml2 · 20/03/2003 19:02

...drat that refresh button!

hmb · 20/03/2003 19:05

No you have the right to the freedom of speech. A right that my dh defends, putting his life at risk to do so. Shame you do not seem to use that right of speech to answer questions. Just an aditional one. Shame also that freedome of speech is normaly the first thing that a dictator like SH takes away.

However freedom of speech does not mean that you are automaticaly correct, and IMO you are not.

Name a 100% democracy.

Oohssorry, cant do that one can you?

hmb · 20/03/2003 19:06

No you have the right to the freedom of speech. A right that my dh defends, putting his life at risk to do so. Shame you do not seem to use that right of speech to answer questions. Just an aditional one. Shame also that freedome of speech is normaly the first thing that a dictator like SH takes away.

However freedom of speech does not mean that you are automaticaly correct, and IMO you are not.

Name a 100% democracy.

Oohssorry, cant do that one can you?

hmb · 20/03/2003 19:06

Bugger, did the same thing

sml2 · 20/03/2003 19:16

hmb
How is Saddam Hussein curtailing my freedom of speech?

The answers to your questions are a politics tutorial! Briefly, here are some examples from history, off the top of my head, so they may not be the best ones:

Queen Elizabeth the First was effectively a dictator, but as her govt was overall a benevolent one, we can say that it was good for England. Please note that executing journalists is not a pre-requisite for being a dictator.

North Africa pre 1832 was a complete democracy, 100% you might say. Naturally, it crumbled under the better organised French invaders. Therefore we could say that in this case, democracy was not the best thing for the country.

I can post some links to suitable text books if you are interested and would not consider that to be too patronising.