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.

41 of 509 comments (clear)

  1. So they are doing what? by DarkOx · · 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.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:So they are doing what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is nothing to defend about the jihadists if part of "expressing their opinion" includes attacking people with guns.

    2. Re:So they are doing what? by mrbester · · 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.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    3. Re:So they are doing what? by oobayly · · Score: 4, 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".

    4. Re:So they are doing what? by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, 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.

    5. Re:So they are doing what? by CanadianRealist · · Score: 1, 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.)

    6. Re:So they are doing what? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    7. Re:So they are doing what? by rmdingler · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    8. Re:So they are doing what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re: So they are doing what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The utility of the death penalty is also way overrated.

    10. Re:So they are doing what? by Carewolf · · 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.

    11. Re:So they are doing what? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

      Two things:

      1) so it would be okay if they advocated killing artists with shotguns?

      2) let them advocate anything they damn well please. Including killing artists with AK's. Punish the people who do the killing(s) is applicable.

      Note also that "incitement to riot" is a crime. wouldn't be hard to use that against people who publicly advocate killing all the "jews/blacks/cartoonists/Pats", assuming that someone then had a go at the actual killing. But we don't need to get into the habit of censoring people's speech because we don't like it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    12. Re:So they are doing what? by Jeremi · · 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.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    13. Re:So they are doing what? by fustakrakich · · 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.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    14. Re:So they are doing what? by lucm · · Score: 4, 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"?

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    15. Re:So they are doing what? by davydagger · · Score: 3, 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...

      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.

    16. Re:So they are doing what? by Anonymous Coward · · 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 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.

  2. will it really matter? by ardiri · · Score: 2, 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.

  3. Anonymous ? Get a life !! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back in 2011 them Anonymous declared war on the Zetas --- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... --- and then what happened?

    Nothing, absolutely NOT A _MOTHERFUCKING_ THING !!

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I speak Spanish and can confirm, no fucks where given.

    2. Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Yeah, like how a military pre-emptive strike is a significant confirmation of the risk that the country being invaded would have obtained weapons of mass destruction and used them on their enemies.

      I'm kidding of course. You're probably right about the Zeta/threat thing. If history has shown us anything, it's that gangsters would never threaten anybody who had already threatened them unless the original threat represented a significant, tangible danger.

      I mean, looking at it logically:

      1. threats are illegal and draw the attention of the police
      2. the zetas are in illegal business, and therefore cannot risk police attention.
      3. the zetas have money on the line and so would obviously never risk that just to satisfy their egos

      Therefore the anonymous must have been genuinely dangerous to them, and struck the fear of god into their black little zeta hearts with a mere glance of their piercing internet eyes.

    3. Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! by CauseBy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You legalize drugs, obvs.

  4. negative reinforcement by kdataman · · 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.

    1. Re:negative reinforcement by Opportunist · · Score: 1, 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?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by Anonymous Coward · · 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 the same thing happened to the locals ... all butchered

    1. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, 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 the same thing happened to the locals ... all butchered

      Factual post modded down by the usual pimps for Islam, either completely ignorant of history, or genocide sympathizers as long as the genocide is done by Muzzies!

    2. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by gizmo2199 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      This Sig does not Exist.
    3. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by ScentCone · · 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.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a social scientist, I'll let Slashdot in on a little secret: if you want to know where violence will occur, look for young males between the ages of 15-25 or so.

      Take a look at this figure and ponder for a moment what it means, in terms of who those individuals are in their stage of life, their self-control and wisdom:

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Median_age.png

      It's not a coincidence those areas of the world have so many problems.

      The terrorism plaguing the middle east is like institutionalized gang violence. It's Lord of the Flies playing out on a global scale, with automatic weapons and IEDs. I guarantee if you took a random sample of the adolescent population from just about anywhere, plunged them into poverty and lack of education and resources, especially if you had them overseen by insanely rich authoritarian tyrants, you'd end up with the terrorism you see now. It probably leads to a viscous cycle, because no one grows old enough to act as role models and build an alternative way out.

      The events in France are horrific, absolutely disgusting. What's happened in France is also arguably distinct from what's happening at the epicenter in the middle east. But as the parent post is noting, sometimes it helps to start with the basics, like current demographic and socioeconomic information.

  6. Re:never understood this cyberwar thing by wonkey_monkey · · 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.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  7. Quote by Karl Popper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by fustakrakich · · 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.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by dgatwood · · Score: 4, 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.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  8. Re:And in the name of Jihadists... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, 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.

  9. Muslims? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · 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 silently agree with them.

    Muslims want the prosperity of liberal democracies, but wish for the draconian theocracy of the appropriately named "Islamic State". Let them go there.

    When the USA was trying to form a liberal democracy Iraq and Afghanistan, what happened? A bunch of insurgencies with attacks with homemade bombs on the troops. Have you seen any such attacks in the Islamic State?

    No, because the people there are Muslims, and that is what then want.

    These Muslim problems can not be solved by outsiders. Only Muslims themselves could do that.

    And until now, they have not managed to step up to the plate, and any statements from Muslim leaders have looked frighteningly apologetic.

    It's up to you Muslims . . . it's your move. The rest of society have put up with enough of your shenanigans.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Muslims? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  10. Saudi Arabia by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Saudi Arabia by BlackPignouf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      +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.

  11. Re:And in the name of Jihadists... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Inflational use of the term "war". by Qbertino · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  13. Re:Back to roots by davydagger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "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.