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.

13 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
  2. 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 !
  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.