Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
The Internet News Your Rights Online

Anonymous Declares War Over Charlie Hebdo Attack 509

mpicpp writes with news that hackers claiming to represent Anonymous have declared war on terrorists. They pledged to take down websites and social media accounts being used by jihadists as retaliation for the Charlie Hebdo attack. They said, "It is clear that some people do not want, in a free world, this inviolable and sacred right to express in any way one's opinions. Anonymous will never leave this right violated by obscurantism and mysticism. We will fight always and everywhere the enemies of freedom of speech. ... Freedom of speech and opinion is a non-negotiable thing, to tackle it is to attack democracy. Expect a massive frontal reaction from us because the struggle for the defense of those freedoms is the foundation of our movement.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Declares War Over Charlie Hebdo Attack

Comments Filter:
  • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @09:30AM (#48780535) Journal

    So in order to protect the rights of others to freely express opinions they are going to silence people expressing the opinion that certain opinions should not be expressed.

    This is all getting a little to meta for me.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 10, 2015 @09:33AM (#48780551)
      There is nothing to defend about the jihadists if part of "expressing their opinion" includes attacking people with guns.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Ever since the advent of Islam "Butchering the infidels" has become their favorite pastime

        The Middle East and North Africa, from Morocco to Iran, used to be populated by Jews and Christians

        Since that pedophile crawled out of that cave where he claimed the Archangel Gabriel bestowed on him the 'Profart' title, however, most of the Jews and the Christians have vanished, thanks to that "Butchering the infidels" pastime of theirs

        Afghanistan / Pakistan used to be territories of the Buddhists and the Hindus, and

        • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 10, 2015 @10:06AM (#48780669)

          Well... No.

          There was about 1000 years of peace before that happened.

          They then suffered a series of lost battles with the Christians and their empires pretty much collapsed. And that got blamed on not being sufficiently "pure" in the faith.

          Of course that didn't stop the collapse either.

          • by Anonymous Coward
            Uh, no! The death of Abu Baqr was immediately followed by Muslim invasions of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Persia and then rest of the region - from Spain to India. In all these places, locals were persecuted and subjugated under dhimmi status, until they embraced Islam. As a result, most people converted to Islam, while the people who resisted - primarily those in India - were subjected to a holocaust that would make Adolf Eichmann blush. Somewhere between 100-200M Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs were s
          • by gizmo2199 ( 458329 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @12:51PM (#48781445) Homepage
            I think we do well to think of current strains of Sunni Islamism as distinct from historical Islam, especially if you attempt to link current terrorists to a culture from 1,000 years ago.

            That would be like trying to explain French politics of the 1980's by looking to the history of Charlemagne, or the First Crusades for an explanation. No, you are better suited to look for the motivations of Jihadis in the problems of failed and failing states in the Near East and Africa, for an explanation.

            In fact, I would imagine that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1970's goes a long way in explaining Islamism today, similarly, the failure of post-colonial regimes in that region after the end of the Cold War.

            Talking about Caliphates and Sharia Law, etc. is kind of playing into the hands of Islamists, who while claiming to be fighting for long-ago Islamic culture, are actually the product of post Cold-War international politics.

            As with everything in international relations, you have to look at the actions of international actors, and not their words. Because talk is cheap, and action costs money and lives.
            • by Beeftopia ( 1846720 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @02:40PM (#48782117)

              As with everything in international relations, you have to look at the actions of international actors, and not their words. Because talk is cheap, and action costs money and lives.

              It's about power. The fact that Muslims - Sunni Muslims - are slaughtered in great numbers by the jihadis shows it's about something other than defending Islam or Muslims.

              Government and religion are ancient and potentially competing power centers. The convenience of Islam to a potential king is that it combines the two power centers into one. So, the wannabe king can rally followers by saying "Fight for God and religion!" instead of "Fight for me, a narcissistic psychopath!" In failed (or decapitated) states, the most effective of these power-hungry actors wins the prize of the throne.

              • by Anonymous Coward

                The fact that Muslims - Sunni Muslims - are slaughtered in great numbers by the jihadis shows it's about something other than defending Islam or Muslims.

                That's neither here nor there. Islam - as in Qur'an/Sunnah/Tafseers - does allow the killing of Muslims who don't support the Jihad. As a famous Islamic saying states: "Disbelief (in Islam) is worse than slaughter"

                Besides, one thing one needs to know about Muslims killing Muslims: that's actually a doctrine called Taqfeer [wikipedia.org]. It's the declaration of one group of Muslims as apostates by another, and justifies any punishment for the latter. This, combined with the sectarianism within Islam, allows for what

            • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @02:46PM (#48782157)

              Talking about Caliphates and Sharia Law, etc. is kind of playing into the hands of Islamists, who while claiming to be fighting for long-ago Islamic culture, are actually the product of post Cold-War international politics.

              It doesn't matter what they're a product of. What matters is their vision for the future and the actual actions they take. THEY are the ones talking about Caliphates and Sharia, and they're the ones happy to slaughter innocents in order to establish what they want. It isn't, and doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

              It doesn't matter if a culture that considers it better to burn a teacher alive than to let her instruct girls in reading and writing is wanting things to be like they were centuries ago, or if they simply want illiterate girls for the sake of keeping them illiterate. It doesn't matter. What matters is that they're acting to make it so.

              • I think they both matter. One is the basis of addressing the now of things. The other should be used as the basis of addressing the later of things. Addressing the now without addressing the later is irresponsible. Addressing the later without addressing the now is dangerous.

      • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @09:56AM (#48780637) Journal

        There is a difference between advocating attacking people with guns and actually doing it. Its a very subtle difference, I admit.

        The problem is its all a matter of perspectives when you talk about advocating attacking people with guns.

        For instance ISIS considers itself a nation state. I imagine they consider the US Army's recruitment site as advocating people join an organization to attack them with guns. I am not saying that is a reasonable opinion but I'd wager many ISIS guys would agree with it if you asked them.

        • by rikkards ( 98006 )

          Last time I checked the loons in France had no link with ISIS. The one had been trained by AQAP but that is about it. Other than that, they had as much link to ISIS as the attacks at CFB Saint Jean and in Ottawa.

          • Actually the one who shot up the Jewish grocery claims affiliation or at least sympathy with ISIS according to
            the leaked phone message from RTL.
          • by unixisc ( 2429386 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @12:38PM (#48781381)
            All of them have an aim to subvert non-Muslim countries into accepting Shariah law, and making the rights of Muslims trump those of non-Muslims, regardless of whether Muslims are a majority or not, and regardless of whether those countries have democratic traditions. Does it really make a fucking difference whether it's ISIS or al Qaeda or Hamas or Hizbullah or Lashkar e Toiba or Jemimah Islamiya or Abu Sayyaf or Islamic Jihad or CAIR or any other Islamic group? This is like having an argument over whether cat excrement is tastier than dog excrement vs human vs horse vs bull vs lion. If an attack has been recognized as an Islamic attack, how the fuck does it matter whether it's a bunch of fanatics from Algeria or Yemen or Iraq or Pakistan or Syria or Bangladesh or Malaysia or Egypt?
        • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 10, 2015 @10:32AM (#48780773)

          Advocating violence against people, as are threats of violence, is actually a crime not protected by the right to freedom of speech.

          Seems many people are confused what freedom of speech really means.

          • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

            Welcome to the world of SJW's, and progressives. Where "feelings" and "perceived hurtful comments" are all that's required to try and block someone's free speech. But getting yourself killed over said free speech? Say...in the Charlie Hebdo case, well you deserved it. There's no shortage of people coming out from that particular side of authoritarianism proclaiming that they deserved it.

        • There is a difference between advocating attacking people with guns and actually doing it

          But neither is protected by any concept of "rights".

        • War declarations were useful things.

        • by davydagger ( 2566757 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @12:53PM (#48781451)

          There is a difference between advocating attacking people with guns and actually doing it. Its a very subtle difference, I admit.

          Its the diffrence between conspiracy, and assault with the intent to comit murder. Nowhere ever is it legal to advocate attacking people with guns, this is a crime. It is not considered "free speech" anywhere. In the USA, we have the 9th amendment which prevents the enumerations of rights from being used to deny others their rights:

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/con... [cornell.edu]

          For instance ISIS considers itself a nation state. I imagine they consider the US Army's recruitment site as advocating people join an organization to attack them with guns. I am not saying that is a reasonable opinion but I'd wager many ISIS guys would agree with it if you asked them.

          Also again, not relative, because we're not in any areas controlled by ISIS. As far as ISIS, no one else recognizes them as a nation state, no more than the handful of "soviergn citizens" in the US, of which they have far less legitimacy because most of ISIS are westerners who moved to the middle east to occupy western syria, by force.

      • by unixisc ( 2429386 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @12:24PM (#48781281)

        Not just that, the sites in question are about plotting terror attacks, gloating over the ones that are successful and calling on people worldwide to go to $MUSLIMCOUNTRY to fight a jihad. That's no longer just 'expressing an opinion' - it's a pure declaration of war - not a debate or an ideological war, but an actual physical war.

        Honestly speaking, I wouldn't like Jihadi sites where they plot attacks to be taken down - they are useful to monitor their plans, and how to destroy them. But the ones that are Islamic propaganda sites, those I'd definitely like them to sabotage, since no useful purpose exists in them staying. A good way to do that would be to have those Mohammed cartoons - both the Charlie Hebdo and the Jylands Posten, as well as others from FaceBook's Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and others - littered over their sites. That would be a good way to retaliate!

        • "they are useful to monitor their plans" are you sure about that? In theory that sounds right, but how do we really know that by allowing them there is just too much signal to noise and we're missing these "plans"? ISIS propaganda has grown to the point it's attracting "lone wolf" operators that are motivated by them yet are not actual members all over the place. It's no longer "come to the Middle East, train some, then go fight". Now people who where not radical one day are beheading people a month later
    • by swb ( 14022 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @09:54AM (#48780627)

      It's kind of the paradox of democracy -- how do you square the rights of a free society against those would use those rights to advocate against them or overthrow them?

      • by Carewolf ( 581105 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @11:38AM (#48781021) Homepage

        It's kind of the paradox of democracy -- how do you square the rights of a free society against those would use those rights to advocate against them or overthrow them?

        You ignore their words and punish them for their actions. If they have a majority you probably shouldn't have a democracy.

        • This is precisely the problem with "bringing democracy" to places where absolute freedom isn't valued. It just opens the door for thugs to co-opt the process and impose their will on the populace all within the framework of "free" elections. But enough about how things work in the US.

      • by itsdapead ( 734413 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @12:19PM (#48781255)

        It's kind of the paradox of democracy -- how do you square the rights of a free society against those would use those rights to advocate against them or overthrow them?

        The first step is to accept that it is a paradox, that no solution is going to be perfect and you're not going to fix everything. Politely ignore anybody who speaks in absolute terms or comes up with trite little not-even-wrong aphorisms like "you have the freedom to do anything you want except the freedom to take away freedom from others".

        Then, before imposing any laws, you have to remember that the acid test is not how they will be interpreted by judges and juries, but how it will be interpreted by publishers, employers, landlords, public institutions, police, security guards etc. who will tend to interpret them in the broadest, most restrictive possible way to cover their own backs.

        Everything is a risk/benefit tradeoff - and the risk can never be zero.

        In the case of freedom of speech, though, it's possible to be almost absolutist if you insist that any activity you do want to control (harassment, incitement to violence, etc.) must involve actions or behaviours that go beyond the words that are said or published. So, if you want to prosecute someone you should not simply have to prove that they uttered the word "fire" in a public theatre, but show evidence that they intentionally set out to cause disruption*. You can prohibit "inciting violence" if you like, but it needs to be absolutely literal, or supported by other activities. Harassment should need to include a pattern of behaviour that shows victimisation. Once you start banning speech that might induce panic, could be interpreted as inciting violence or that made the victim feel harassed the slippery slope beckons.

        Unfortunately, both religious extremists and politicians do like to pretend that they have the solution to everything, while lawyers lurk to apply 20:20 hindsight to anybody who takes a risk and loses, and lawmakers who seem to think that if a legal decision misinterpreting their law is put right on the third appeal then everything is rosy.

        (* Of course, although this is a popular example, they're quite rightly going to that special hell reserved for people who talk at the theatre *anyway* so free speech isn't really relevant)

    • by mrbester ( 200927 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @10:00AM (#48780651) Homepage

      I consider it to be more like the First Amendment argument that is popular: you can say what you want but you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Nobody seems to have a problem with that.

      Jihadists can say what they want, but they can't advocate killing artists with Kalashnikovs.

    • by oobayly ( 1056050 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @10:05AM (#48780665)

      Came here to say exactly this. It seems that people need to be reminded of what François Marie Arouet (it's often attributed to Voltair) said:

      I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

      Whilst the violent reaction of fundamental muslims is disgraceful, I fully support their ability to sprout their views. If I didn't, then I couldn't support Charlie Hebdo et al to mock islam (along with judaism and christianity and everyone else). Take a positive look at it - by allowing them to air their views, we're making sure the world sees how pathetic they are, and allows us [with clear conscience] to say "they are utter disgraces as human beings".

      • by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @10:22AM (#48780745)

        Came here to say exactly this. It seems that people need to be reminded of what François Marie Arouet (it's often attributed to Voltair) said:

        I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

        Whilst the violent reaction of fundamental muslims is disgraceful, I fully support their ability to sprout their views. If I didn't, then I couldn't support Charlie Hebdo et al to mock islam (along with judaism and christianity and everyone else). Take a positive look at it - by allowing them to air their views, we're making sure the world sees how pathetic they are, and allows us [with clear conscience] to say "they are utter disgraces as human beings".

        Uhm... I do no think you understand "Anonymous"
        They're like a super geeky version of your drunken Redneck cousin Rufus. Any semi-passable pretext to start a fight is leap upon. Then you're forced to listen to several minutes of chest puffing and threats that are usually followed by his ADD kicking in, him losing interest and you feeling embarrassed that hes related to you.

        • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @11:02AM (#48780909) Journal

          They're like a super geeky version of your drunken Redneck cousin Rufus. Any semi-passable pretext to start a fight is leap upon.

          How do you know my family?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

          Fine, agree 100%, but denying the holocaust is strictly verboten in France. Another equivalent expression would be to goose-step down the Champs-Élysées singing Deutschland uber alles. All examples tasteless and repugnant, but Mohammed in homo-scenes seems to be quite acceptable.

          This #'jesuischarlie thing is not very well thought-out, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to my French friends on the basis they are in shock, and emotions are running high. But defending unsavory freedom of spee

          • I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

            Fine, agree 100%, but denying the holocaust is strictly verboten in France. Another equivalent expression would be to goose-step down the Champs-Élysées singing Deutschland uber alles. All examples tasteless and repugnant, but Mohammed in homo-scenes seems to be quite acceptable.

            This #'jesuischarlie thing is not very well thought-out, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to my French friends on the basis they are in shock, and emotions are running high. But defending unsavory freedom of speech when directed towards Arabs, but taking offence when directed against Jews, or French nationalism is far from the sophisticated, elegant and enlightened image many Europeans like to hold of themselves.

            Except the Mohammed stuff is made up and a joke. The holocaust really did happen, and makes most other events in human history pale in comparison. And those that would deny that it happened are doing so for the very purpose of repeating the event. The purpose of the Mohammed cartoons was to try and get Muslims to lighten up (A good thing) The purpose of denying the holocost is to recreate it (a bad thing.)

            I do not support those laws, but they're like the child molester laws of free speech. It's really hard

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      They will use all their skills over Internet in order to track people who don't use Internet.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 10, 2015 @10:09AM (#48780689)

      Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

      In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

      From The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        ...use of their fists or pistols.

        That's the clincher that nobody will address. There are absolutely no words that can justify the use of force. We should have absolutely no tolerance for censorship.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      It's wrong to kill people, if you do so, we will execute you. (Slashdot is quite US centric and the US still uses the death penalty.)
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rmdingler ( 1955220 )
        Sometimes, you have to put a dog down that you're particularly fond of.

        Sometimes, you have to put one down that really needs to go.

        This ubiquitous sanctity for human life is way overrated.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

          This ubiquitous sanctity for human life is way overrated.

          Anyone who's ever worked in an urban emergency room (I have) knows this is true. If life was "sanctified", it wouldn't be so cheap.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          The utility of the death penalty is also way overrated.

        • by lucm ( 889690 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @12:36PM (#48781363)

          Sometimes, you have to put a dog down that you're particularly fond of.

          Sometimes, you have to put one down that really needs to go.

          This ubiquitous sanctity for human life is way overrated.

          This is exactly what those terrorists think. Don't you understand that in real life conflicts, neither side usually considers itself to be "the bad guys"?

      • by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @12:20PM (#48781263) Homepage

        It's wrong to kill people, if you do so, we will execute you. (Slashdot is quite US centric and the US still uses the death penalty.)

        I'm against the death penalty myself, but the above is an oversimplification. The actual policy is more like "It's wrong to murder people, if you do so, we will put you to trial, and if you're found guilty by a jury of your peers, and all of your subsequent appeals are denied, then you may be executed".

        The key distinction being the (alleged) operation of due process and rule of law leading up to an execution, as opposed to the ad-hoc extrajudicial killing in the case of an individual committing murder.

        Unless you observe the distinction between what the law is allowed to do vs what an individual is allowed to do, the logic fails under its own weight. For example, you could use the same construction to accuse the US of hypocrisy for uncontroversial practices: "it's wrong to kidnap people and keep them in a cage; if you do so, we will imprison you", or "it's wrong to take money from people against their will; if you do so, we will make you pay a fine" ... but I don't think anyone is (seriously) arguing for getting rid of all prisons or fines.

      • It's wrong to summarily and indiscriminately kill people. The death penalty that you speak of is only administered after a trial, and the suspect is found guilty.
    • So in order to protect the rights of others to freely express opinions they are going to silence people expressing the opinion that certain opinions should not be expressed.

      The jihadis will still have a right to freely express their opinions, they're just going to have to fix their servers first. They can stick their heads out their wiindows and express to their hearts' content.

      I don't think a right to speech guarantees a platform. People using "rights" to deprive you of life don't exactly make sympatheti

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        I don't think a right to speech guarantees a platform.

        That gives nobody the right to destroy the platform they have. All censorship is absolutely intolerable. ALL of it! Stop the guns, fine. Lift a finger to censor the speech, and I will be more than happy to cut it off.

  • by ardiri ( 245358 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @09:30AM (#48780539) Homepage

    sounds like a PR campaign over something that will be effective.. if you look at any footage of ISIS and these extremists; they are a tad behind when it comes to technology - the social networks should be the one shutting down any propoganda efforts from these guys.. smells like "anonymous" is just riding on the publicity behind these tragic events to get noticed.

    • The social networks are trying, but even the low-tech army of IS is good enough to make new dummy accounts as needed. If my mother can figure out how to use facebook, so can IS.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

        Of course. All ISIS has to do is put up a YouTube saying they've got 72 virgins and plenty of Playstations and that if you join them you too can stop the SJWs and give the finger to your mom who's not the boss of you.

    • sounds like a PR campaign over something that will be effective.. if you look at any footage of ISIS and these extremists; they are a tad behind when it comes to technology

      "Behind" can still be plenty effective. How much technology do you need to recruit disaffected kids to come join your spree kill cult? Or to put a target on someone's back?

  • by kdataman ( 1687444 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @09:40AM (#48780569)

    I read that some small towns around Paris had their Websites defaced with the ISIS flag. I am surprised the Anons haven't thought of defacing a few ISIS leaning web sites with images of the cartoons in question or something similar. That way, instead of the terrorists feeling like they reduced the distribution of the images they will actually be faced with more of the images right on the sites they use. And this gets the images out there without giving ISIS any new targets. OTOH if the Anons take-down an ISIS site it would probably just deprive the NSA and MI5 of some valuable intelligence. This is something more within their skillset.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 )

      If the NSA or Mi5 need targets, there's plenty of asshats preaching death and destruction. There's your target. Where's your bullet?

  • Je suis Charlie (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 10, 2015 @09:54AM (#48780621)

    Posting anonymously as I'll probably burn mod points here later on

    I personally feel that these 'jihadist' murderers should be charged and sentenced under Sharia law. But not for murder, that would only reward the behavior by making them martyrs.

    Instead, try them for the theft of another person's life, and sentence them as common, petty thieves. That sentence would be cutting off both their hands, then bandaging the stumps and sending the assholes back to ISIS. Let ISIS handle their food and waste needs, and their rehabilitation. Let the fanatically blind ISIS recruits see, in terms that they would understand, how terribly misguided this abomination calling itself a "jihad" is in the eyes of the world, and in the vision of Allah and the Prophet.

    --

    Je suis Charlie.

    • by x0ra ( 1249540 )
      I think the killing of an "infidel" is not considered murder. AFAIK, christians had the same rule during their crusades.
  • Right?

    Removing the freedom of speech of those who would seek to remove the freedom of speech ....

    • Removing the freedom of speech of those who would seek to remove the freedom of speech ....

      I'm not sure that's an entirely accurate way to characterize the statement by Anonymous. The way I read it, they're not trying to silence the jihadists, but merely disrupt the channels they use to communicate with one another. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way, it seems to me to be a bit of poetic justice, a well thought-out way to target the perpetrators of violence in a peaceful, yet disruptive manner without offending th

  • Back to roots (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AdmV0rl0n ( 98366 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @10:03AM (#48780655) Homepage Journal

    Anonymous originally (if I recollect rightly) came to a more public place originally when they choose to stand and have a fight with the cult of Scientology. And in doing so a level of fame was garnished. Not to mention fighting a good fight.

    Since then, Anonymous has waged a lot of Ops and has hit various targets - and in my HO has lost its way.

    Freedom and Liberty - generally even if it gets lost along its path sometimes is a Western Foundation. Millions of people leave other parts of the west to try and escape the terrible events taking place not in the west. There is a constant war where people in the west question themselves, their activities, their history.

    But this is a form of war, first between Islamics and Islamics, the intolerant, and the tolerant, and the largesst numbers of people suffering in this war is generall Muslims.

    People take affront at Islam being selected as a problem. An issue. It is. The Islamic world has some of the worst government, and where there is better government it is persistantly under threat - not from democracy, but usually henchmen and AK47s and the threat of sharia gangsterism. There are terrible things that take place, from the Saudi Blogger who is being brutally whipped for the next weeks by a so called 'Theocratic' Government of Saudi Arabia. There is widescale FGM and terrible treatment of women, and children are killed, have acid thrown over them, and there is a war on education, liberty and freedom. Most educated, well adjusted islamics who benefit from living in the west and make case defence for Islam have their view. They have a voice in the discussion, but it is not a view that can be accepted.

    50+ states have attempted to enact UN level movement to try to inflict laws that would apply world wide and eliminate and reduce the free speech, free expression, and the age of enlightenment - explicitly a larger Charlie Hebdo political effort aimed at everyone. And its backed daily in all corners of the world by brutal men - no, not men, scumbags and physcopaths, sociopaths and idiots - who carry out a brutal drawling of lines in the sand agaist anyone who doesn't comply. Its maintained by limited education, brutality against women and repression, poverty and misery against everyone else.

    This is a war. Its a war against lunatic elements of humanity who have decided in a new facism - one where their totalitarian view is the only view. This was carried out when they decided not to kill cartoonists in Paris. That was just a message. They sent a bigger message which is if you say anything, men will come to your door and execute you.

    The answer was every single media outlet and paper should have published the cartoons. But no matter. The fact many did not was cowardice - but cowardice has been the path of Mass media for years. So, Charlie Hedbo was left exposed being a refusnik in this cowardice and now people are dead.

    If anonymous was to enact what they have said, it would be their finest hour. In worthy cause, and in line with its original ideal. Whatever fights the world faces, Western governments and companies are generally a lower scale issue than the threat of lunatic islam. It has reached a point where Islam is creating no go areas in the west. Areas where threats of violence and intimidation have become the rhetoric of their view of democracy.

    It is not enough to say it. Now is the time where action has to take place. Why should any islamic organisation of any kind that hates free speech and liberty be allowed to have any. They have created the rule base of their own reality. Now let them live it.

    Unleash the dogs of war.

    • Gee, however would a leaderless, anonymous, unorganized chatroom ever "lose its way"? And how would it find its way "back to its roots?" I imagine Anonymous kind of like a Slashdot commentary completely responded to by Anonymous Cowards... How would we possibly keep the bullfrogs all in the wheelbarrow?
    • That's because every time you think of "Anonymous" as a group you fail to understand it at all. If any of the same people are involved in the latest 'anonymous' adventure that were involved in the previous ops that is a coincidence of them wanting to do it again. Full cycle every. single. time.
    • Re:Back to roots (Score:5, Insightful)

      by davydagger ( 2566757 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @01:20PM (#48781581)
      "Anonymous" never was an organization, and you don't seem to know much about them. It started on the chans, and "Anonymous" is just a name for the collective mass of chan kiddies from about ~2006-2010, on the various chans, who don't enter a name, so the server renders the name as "Anonymous".

      They trolled people and did some pranks, and hacked some facebooks, and even made some media and art depicting the "Anonymous" personified, but it was never a real organization. While anyone can use the name "Anonymous", its pretty well understood they were "chan people", specificly '/b/-tards'. Their first stint in the mainstream was FOX NEWS around 2009 publishing its infamous "Hackers on Steriods" bit. In those days, their motto was "Some Men Want to Watch the World Burn". In those days, they were just a bunch of trolls.

      Their first instance of activism was against Scientology, and the first time they tried being the "good" guy, fighting for justice. After Scientology, many of them, suspected to be mostly new members, but no one really knows, decided to fight for other moralist causes. Meanwhile, another faction known as the "hatefags" derried the new found "moralfags", on their social justice leanings.(back then, it was customary for all Anonymous to refer to themselves as "faggots" or "fags", and sometimes even "niggers"). Of course they take many targets, some of them in the US Government, and many of the moralfags get arrested, and eventually it goes quiet, with the chans carrying on, without raids on anything mostly, and eventual seperation between chans and Anonymous. All the real hardcore ones are most likely in jail right about now serving long sentances.

      Who is still in Anonymous now, or who their members are, I haven't really kept track.

  • snarky thought (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by cellocgw ( 617879 )

    I don't suppose they'd like to include the CONUS websites which espouse Christian Fundie values as well?

  • I'll believe it when it happens.
  • You should use authentification and encryption NOW!

    On your remote switch* or we will see many islamists detonating in their training camps, instead detonating at a market square.

    Actually then the term suicide bomber would be appropriate - because it's not essentially suicide but essentially it's murder, suicide is just a byproduct

    *Suicide bombers have their paket often equiped with a fail over switch if the bomber rethinks pressing the button, it will be pressed remotely.

  • ...that the thing Anonymous is claiming to be defending in its actions is the very thing it is attacking!

    Fuck me.

  • They've overstayed their welcome in liberal Western democracies.

    It's time for them to go.

    I'm not really upset about these wacky radical folks who commit such atrocities . . . but I am angry about the larger "moderate" Muslim communities that tolerate them. Look, back in High School, every kid knew who was dealing drugs, or up to other mischief. Every member of the Muslim community in your backyard knows who the radicals are. But, do they turn them in, to the authorities . . . ?

    No, because they silentl

    • What are Christians doing to shut down the Westboro church?

  • Saudi Arabia (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @11:01AM (#48780899)
    If they have the resources to attack someone, it should be the cash-rich Saudis who fund these terror cells. If you want to hurt jihadists, cut off their money.
    • Re:Saudi Arabia (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BlackPignouf ( 1017012 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @01:05PM (#48781513)

      +1000
      Whole Europe is selling football clubs, museums and car manufacturers to those double-face assholes (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, ...), because they're in need of their precious oil.
      Cut the dependency on oil, and you'll solve peak oil, global warming and islamic terror at the same time.

  • by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Saturday January 10, 2015 @12:12PM (#48781219)

    Is it not? ... I wish people - especially those with enough brain-power to put computers and networks to creative use - would use more precise and less inflative wording.

"It says he made us all to be just like him. So if we're dumb, then god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa

Working...