Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Declares War Over Charlie Hebdo Attack
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.
Daily reminder that the anonymous flag is in great supply and ready for anyone to just pick it up and wave it around for any reason
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.
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 you tried to pose as if he could issue one.
You are a little trolling kid. Not unlike a lot of the rest of the religious nuts. They noticed that people tremble in fear the moment someone throws about "Muslim words". Something that pisses off devout Muslims the most, btw. It's like people waving about guns to make themselves feel big and powerful, which makes all (responsible) gun owners look like loose cannons because some of those dickheads that wave it about as a penis substitute ARE loose cannons or simply act irrationally. Or are simply stupid beyond belief.
It's not much different with the nuts that use religion as a weapon of shock and awe.
After the school shootings kids learned that they can get respect and fear from the others around them if they pose like they'd go and start shooting up shit as well if "provoked some more". Guess what, all it accomplished was that these kids were grounded. As is befitting to punk ass kids.
And this is little else.
"Uhhh, watch out, I'm going all jihad on your ass now"
Yeah, sure, shut up and troll somewhere else, kid.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They were threatened and they stopped, out of fear: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/nov/02/anonymous-zetas-hacking-climbdown
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....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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 slaughtered in India by various Muslim rulers over the last 1000 years.
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. 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 you describe.
In any Muslim land, 'Islam' is defined by whatever sect the majority of that place is. In other words, in Saudi Arabia, it's the Wahabis - the followers of the Hanbali school of Islamic Jurisprudence, and out there, what the Shiites or Sufis or others do is strictly considered unIslamic. Whereas in Iran, since the Shiites are the majority there, Sunnis are the ones considered unIslamic. This also explains why in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, despite being a devout Muslim himself (getting the Qur'an written in his blood, putting 'Allahu Akbar' on the Iraqi flag), Iraq wasn't declared an Islamic republic. Had it been, Shiite Islam would have been the majority, and Sunnis would have been effectively declared Murtads (apostates).
This persecution is not limited to just followers of rival sects, but is extended to sympathizers of those sects, even among followers of the loyal sect. In other words, Sunni Muslims who oppose ISIS/al Qaeda/Hamas/Sipah e Shehaba et al, are roadblocks in the advancement of Islam, and are thereby legitimate targets, as per the Sunnah. Same would work for Shiites who oppose the Iranian regime or Hizbullah. And so on.
So the fact that Muslims too are killed by Jihadi groups does not contradict their stated goals about establishing Islamic states. Sometimes, Muslims who may simply oppose Jihad group A and support Jihad group B may be slaughtered by militias of A, but that doesn't mean that A is not out to establish Islam, or Shariah, even if it be their version. (And versions are usually Sunnite/Shiite or divisions within it, like Hanafi/Hanbali/Shafii/Maliki for Sunnis, or Jaafari/Khomenii for Shiites and so on).
This one is based on an incident involving Mohammed and his child bride Aisha, who he married when she was 6 and fucked when she was 9. The story was that there was an incident where she was alone, and there were allegations that she had committed adultery. Mohammed then came up with the 4 witnesses rule and demanded to know whether 4 witnesses had seen her do what she was charged with. Since there weren't, Aisha got saved.
Problem with that, however, down the road was that this '4 witnesses' rule was used in cases of rape. In other words, if a woman was raped, she had to have 4 witnesses to substantiate her allegation. Failing that, rape couldn't be proved, but the woman in that case would then be guilty of adultery/fornication, and be sentenced to N lashes or imprisonment. And while some woman might try to get away by not reporting it, if she got pregnant, then she was fucked in more ways than one, since the sentence for this, under Shariah, was being buried at waist level and then stoned. (This too Mohammed did to a woman who confessed that sin to him). Combine this with yet another law - the evidence of one Muslim man is equivalent to that of 2 Muslim women.
So if a man raped a woman, unless he was stupid enough to do it in front of 4 hostile witnesses, he'd be safe. Only case a woman might have it lucky - if it was a non Muslim man raping a Muslim woman. Then another law kicks in - that the evidence of 1 Muslim is equivalent to that of 2 or more Infidels, and there, the woman would probably be lucky. But other than that, most raped women in a Muslim country would be SOL