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.
So they are doing what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Favorite Pastime for the Islamists (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Favorite Pastime for Muslims (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Killing Muzzies too doesn't imply non-Islamic goal (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Those people are not fundamentally different from us; the problem is in their culture, not in their genes. Even then, their basic culture is not all that thug-centric. Most people would very much rather have a stable society than war. The passionate fanatics - the ones that are willing to machine gun rooms full of students to make their points - are few (percentage-wise; it still amounts to hundreds of thousands when you take into account the overall population), but their fervor drags the rest along.
The tr
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
the leaked phone message from RTL.
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But neither is protected by any concept of "rights".
Re: (Score:2)
War declarations were useful things.
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:4, Interesting)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. Such a simple elegant answer to a tough question.
Cue several centuries of judges and lawyers arguing over what constitutes speech and what constitutes action. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre? Political campaign contributions or commercials? The seven deadly words of television?
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
We all knew it. That was the whole point of the act—preventing anyone other than the candidate from making ads that name a particular candidate close to the election. By preventing that, you prevent what amounts to an infinite amount of support for candidates by the rich, thus removing a giant loophole that negated all the benefits of having campaign finance limits in the first place.
The reality is t
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
declaring war on a group isn't protected free speech either.
Unless you're a head of State.
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:4, Funny)
How do you know my family?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Quote by Karl Popper (Score:5, Insightful)
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:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Quote by Karl Popper (Score:4, Interesting)
The Open Society and Its Enemies [fu-berlin.de] [PDF, 3.3 MB]
Re:Quote by Karl Popper (Score:5, Insightful)
Not precisely. Any intolerant philosophy can be countered by rational argument, but first you have to get the person to actually start listening. In the case of terrorists (foreign or domestic, religious or otherwise), that doesn't work because the second part can't be done for various reasons. However, in the case of people thinking about joining a terrorist group, that can work to some degree, because they haven't yet closed themselves off to argument.
Unfortunately, most governments don't even try. For example, the U.S. government's war on terror primarily fans the flames rather than countering the philosophy. They fight unnecessary wars that kill innocent people, thus turning those innocents' friends and relatives against them, resulting in a steady stream of people who are angry at the western world, who are then prime targets for radicalization. They lock innocent people up for decades without a trial, thus giving people even more reason to hate them. Then, when they find out that someone might be becoming radicalized, they monitor them, often going so far as to encourage them to commit fake crimes so that they'll get caught and can spend the rest of their lives in prison, rather than attacking the rot of hate by countering it with rational argument. All of these things make people hate the West even more.
In short, I'm pretty sure the U.S. government is doing almost everything it possibly can to encourage extremist behavior. What I don't understand is why. Are they trying to bring about the end of the world, or are they really that clueless?
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to justify the horrible actions of people who use bombs to try to kill as many people as possible, most of whom likely had little or nothing to do with whatever they're angry about, many of whom might even agree with them, at least in principle. I'm just saying that many of the attacks are undeniably at least partially the fault of the western world for fomenting hatred among the people of the Middle East and for failing to take even the slightest actions to counter that hatred among people that it knew were heading down that path. It's a bit like not locking your doors and then wondering why your insurance company won't pay for your missing widescreen TV....
The only true way to fight hate is to face it head on, by teaching people not to hate. If you manage to do that—if the very idea of hating others becomes so antithetical to everyone's core beliefs that nobody joins hate groups—then eventually they'll go away by attrition.
Just saying.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: So they are doing what? (Score:3, Insightful)
The utility of the death penalty is also way overrated.
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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"?
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:5, 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.)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:So they are doing what? (Score:4, Informative)
Note that it requires a special FFL to own a grenade launcher, and that it's unlikely that Obama's Justice Department will issue you one, but they're otherwise legal in the USA.
Shooting them at people, not so much....
Re: (Score:3)
You're sitting in front of a terminal that gives you access to information in a way that makes the great library at Alexandria look like a comic book store, and you can't be arsed to look up what the 17th Amendment says before commenting on it?
The 17th Amendment does not give two senators to each state. That was written into the original Constitution; the bicameral system was a compromise between those who wanted population-proportional representation (i.e. the House of Representatives) and equal-state rep
will it really matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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?
negative reinforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Anonymous sees the logical flaw, right? (Score:2)
Right?
Removing the freedom of speech of those who would seek to remove the freedom of speech ....
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Back to roots? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Back to roots (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
I don't suppose they'd like to include the CONUS websites which espouse Christian Fundie values as well?
Promises Promises (Score:2)
@All aspiring suicide bombers and their controlers (Score:2)
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.
ironic, then (Score:2)
...that the thing Anonymous is claiming to be defending in its actions is the very thing it is attacking!
Fuck me.
Muslims? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Pure bullshit ... (Score:3)
What are Christians doing to shut down the Westboro church?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean: When the US (and allies) were trying to impose THEIR idea of how to live.
Actually, I agree with you 100%! The US should not doing any military action in the Islamic State. The rich Muslim countries should decide to do this, if they want.
I need to quote you again,
trying to impose THEIR idea of how to live
. . . which is exactly what Muslims are trying to do to us today, in OUR countries!
Re:Muslims? (Score:5, Insightful)
The scenario that you describe, is more or less already taking place . . . in the Islamic State. Ask a few Kurdish women how they have been handled by the Islamic State soldiers . . . whoops! They have all been sold off into sex slavery.
Since you made an oblique reference to what happened in Nazi Germany, I will respond to that. The Germans are rather intelligent folks, and it was very difficult for them to come to terms that they were following an evil ideology.
The same thing applies to Islam. It's just plain evil. It needs to be banned like Naziism. Just turn on your TV, and see what Islam is doing to the world today.
The West has been handling Muslims with kid gloves. It's time drop the gloves.
Saudi Arabia (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Saudi Arabia (Score:5, Insightful)
+1000 ...), because they're in need of their precious oil.
Whole Europe is selling football clubs, museums and car manufacturers to those double-face assholes (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen,
Cut the dependency on oil, and you'll solve peak oil, global warming and islamic terror at the same time.
Inflational use of the term "war". (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Anonymous ? Get a life !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in 2011 them Anonymous declared war on the Zetas --- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com] --- and then what happened?
Nothing, absolutely NOT A _MOTHERFUCKING_ THING !!
Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! (Score:5, Informative)
They were threatened and they stopped, out of fear: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/nov/02/anonymous-zetas-hacking-climbdown
Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! (Score:5, Insightful)
You legalize drugs, obvs.
Re: (Score:3)
You legalize drugs, obvs.
Yes.. everywhere. Now you have cartels buying Colorado weed and smuggling it back to Mexico to sell at a profit to the wealthy who live there. This world needs to stop looking to the USA for legal advice and policy and do it their own way.
Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! (Score:2, Insightful)
I speak Spanish and can confirm, no fucks where given.
Re: What bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
If the purp0se of the website is to recruit suicide bombers and bloodthirsty killers to attack innocent 3rd parties, then you can consider it part of the infrastructure of a hostile army, and a first class target for anyone wanting to interrupt such monsters. If you go all meta and pedantic, you have already lost grasp on reality, and need a brain check.
Re:never understood this cyberwar thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Change someones facebook profile picture or block their twitter accounts?
Yes, because it's what they know how to do, and it's more than you or I are going to do about it, if we're honest.
Re: (Score:3)
If they do anything, it trumps my own contribution Of: "Gosh, that's just horrible!"
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous is as influential as the bulletin board at my local grocery store.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's illegal to go and send one of those jihad preachers to discuss matters directly with his boss. No idea why, but my lawyer says so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A fatwa was declared? By whom? You? Who are you? A fatwa is required to be issued by a qualified mufti to be considered remotely legit, and unless it's someone REALLY important like an important Ayatollah (and I'm not talking about some of the self proclaimed dickheads we find all over the west now but someone who EARNED that title!) you better have a muftiate to back it up! A fatwa is something pretty big and I don't really think any mufti would look kindly upon it if some noname of zero importance like yo
Re:And in the name of Jihadists... (Score:5, Insightful)
While a fatwa must be issued by a qualified mufti, it's less clear how one becomes a qualified mufti. There are quite a lot of them, and they routinely issue contradictory fatwas and declare their rivals to be heretics.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing how similar religions can be...
But back on topic, I guess we may be fairly sure that this kid ain't one.
Re:And in the name of Jihadists... (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. The mufti system worked back when there was a caliphate, much like when the Catholic church was the only Christian game in town (Well, no-one cared about the Orthodox). There was a clear chain of command and structure of authority to decide who gets to be a priest and who doesn't, and set rules as to what areas priests may have authority over with procedures for dispute resolution. If there was a disagreement over what the religion is supposed to mean, you just go up the chain until someone is willing to resolve it, and you can disregard anyone who claims to be a religious teacher but isn't recognised by the dominant authority. Then the protestant reformation comes along, or the caliphate ends, and there's no more power structure. You get one priest screaming that infidels must die, and another screaming that they must be allowed to live in peace and receive preaching in the hope they will one day convert freely, and another screaming that they may live but need to demonstrate subservient status, and another saying believers should have no contact with them at all - and there is nothing at all to say the opinion of any is more valid than another, so in the end the most charismatic personality with the largest band of followers wins.
Re:And in the name of Jihadists... (Score:5, Insightful)
You still have muftis with more and muftis with less "street cred" about. Just like with the various churches. If the pope says something, even people who are not Roman Catholics will listen. When Pope Francis said that according to him the whole evolution and big bang and 15 billion years and all that probably holds a lot more water than Creationism, you didn't see creationists go "fuck him, who gives a shit?" but they felt the pressing urge to comment on it. On the other hand, I kinda doubt that the Vatican would have bothered to even comment on it when some creationist preacher yells at the top of his lungs about how evolution is wrong.
This is the difference between someone who is deemed important, and someone who simply isn't.
Maybe important on a small scale. Said preacher is probably important in his parish where people actually bother to listen. But certainly not on a global scale.
You have the same deal with Islam. There are a few people or congregations of people whose opinion is of global importance to Muslims, whether they follow that particular creed or not, whether they agree or not. They may not like it, but they can't simply dismiss it as bullshit said by someone who doesn't count.
That does of course not mean that you won't find your radical splinter group that gathers around some charismatic leader who abuses the religion as a tool to gain power. But it also does not mean that this megalomaniac idiot has any more meaning to Islam than the Westboro Baptist Church has to Christianity.
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever petty bickering the protestants have done it is nothing compared to the holy mess catholicism has done.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like anyone in America can become a preacher. While more traditional religious approaches may include a more scholarly approach to understanding one's professed religion, we can tell by the zillions of self-taught American preachers that zealous bigots with big voices are the religious figures who make the news, either by blaming hurricanes on God's anger at gay marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina_as_divine_retribution) or by humping preachers in motels without discretion (http://e
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm not really a big proponent of organized religion (to me it's a bit like UFO nuts pretending to be scientific because they band together and some of them found out how to take real science out of context). But in this special case, you can't help but think the Roman Catholics have something going right by requiring someone to study theology for a while before being allowed to claim they're a priest.
Of course you do have the same shit in Islam. For the same reasons. These people don't give half a sh
Re: (Score:2)
Erh... ok, there is actually something missing between first and second paragraph (I should proofread after doing some copy/pasting in my texts). The "same shit" refers to self proclaimed preachers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)