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.
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.
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
Well... No.
There was about 1000 years of peace before that happened.
They then suffered a series of lost battles with the Christians and their empires pretty much collapsed. And that got blamed on not being sufficiently "pure" in the faith.
Of course that didn't stop the collapse either.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.