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.
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
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 !
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.
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.
From The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper.
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.
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.
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!
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.
+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.
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.
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.