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.
Shit, that was qu1%^..
no carrier
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.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
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.
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?
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.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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.
We`re all equal
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.
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)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
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!
The Open Society and Its Enemies [PDF, 3.3 MB]
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
All of them have an aim to subvert non-Muslim countries into accepting Shariah law, and making the rights of Muslims trump those of non-Muslims, regardless of whether Muslims are a majority or not, and regardless of whether those countries have democratic traditions. Does it really make a fucking difference whether it's ISIS or al Qaeda or Hamas or Hizbullah or Lashkar e Toiba or Jemimah Islamiya or Abu Sayyaf or Islamic Jihad or CAIR or any other Islamic group? This is like having an argument over whether cat excrement is tastier than dog excrement vs human vs horse vs bull vs lion. If an attack has been recognized as an Islamic attack, how the fuck does it matter whether it's a bunch of fanatics from Algeria or Yemen or Iraq or Pakistan or Syria or Bangladesh or Malaysia or Egypt?
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?
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.