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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
If they do anything, it trumps my own contribution Of: "Gosh, that's just horrible!"
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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
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.
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.
Gee, however would a leaderless, anonymous, unorganized chatroom ever "lose its way"? And how would it find its way "back to its roots?" I imagine Anonymous kind of like a Slashdot commentary completely responded to by Anonymous Cowards... How would we possibly keep the bullfrogs all in the wheelbarrow?
Gently reply
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Bullshit. Speech is speech. No matter how offensive you find it, you only have the right to use words against them, absolutely nothing else. Your reasoning is the same thing they use to force their women to cover up. If speech can incite violence then clothing can incite rape.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
Whatever petty bickering the protestants have done it is nothing compared to the holy mess catholicism has done.
its mostly because all the real hardcore anti-government Anons are in jail or flipped. Isn't that obvious?
What are Christians doing to shut down the Westboro church?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
For a culture that hates everything western society has and states that technology is evil and the hand of satan. they sure take advantage of the modern developments that have their root in said culture.
no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
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).