Slashdot Mirror


Anonymous Vows Revenge For ISIS Paris Attacks

An anonymous reader writes: As usual, Anonymous members are quicker to respond to threats than investigators and have announced #OpParis as revenge for the Paris attacks. Their action is similar to #OpISIS from this spring, launched after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Previously Anonymous ousted thousands of ISIS Twitter accounts in #OpISIS. In a more conventional response, the government of France has been bombarding ISIS positions in Syria with airstrikes, and hunting for suspect Salah Abdeslam in connection with Friday's killings.

24 of 488 comments (clear)

  1. Quicker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As usual, Anonymous members are quicker to respond to threats than investigators

    That's because they don't have any requirement to perform due diligence or, well, investigate anything. Investigators do. Anonymous are more like instigators.

    1. Re:Quicker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why does anyone require 'due diligence' and fact-checking against insane violent assholes like these Sunni extremist fuckstains that laughingly call themselves the 'Islamic State'

      Well, for a start, to make sure that's who's actually responsible. (Not saying they're not - or that they don't deserve action anyway, but if it weren't them, then another guilty party could be getting away with no action due to a lack of due diligence)

    2. Re:Quicker by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does anyone require 'due diligence' and fact-checking against insane violent assholes like these Sunni extremist fuckstains that laughingly call themselves the 'Islamic State' (as if they have the skillset or civilized restraint to actually run a country peacefully)?

      Mainly so you don't accidentally kill the neighbor of the insane extremist, when the neighbor is actually a rather nice guy.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Quicker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't post angry, that's a bad idea. You may also want to consider other viewpoints than "exterminate them down to the last motherfucking one of them". Perhaps a quote from 'A man for all seasons' may help:

      Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

      Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

      Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

      Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

      ===

      Becomie a vigilante force to end another vigilante force and you have lost the battle, plain and simple. You are no better than them.

    4. Re:Quicker by RDW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why does anyone require 'due diligence' and fact-checking against insane violent assholes

      This is why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    5. Re:Quicker by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does anyone require 'due diligence' and fact-checking against insane violent assholes like these Sunni extremist fuckstains that laughingly call themselves the 'Islamic State'

      The due diligence isn't for checking whether ISIS is responsible, or a worthy target. The due diligence is for making sure that the people you're attacking are actually ISIS.

      We've seen some pretty high-profile examples of Anonymous having some, shall we say, targeting mishaps in the past. And if you need a citation for that, you don't know enough about Anonymous to participate in this conversation.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Quicker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      911 AND ISIS are both examples of what happens when governments go off half cocked without thinking about the ramifications of their actions or long term consequences.

    7. Re:Quicker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You may also want to consider other viewpoints than "exterminate them down to the last motherfucking one of them".

      Tell you what: If they're kicking in your door to drag you out into the street and cut off your gods-be-damned head, let's see how well quoting shit like that works for you, OK? It's really easy for someone like you, who no doubt is sitting nice and safe in your house, probably in a 1st-world country like the U.S., to spout shit like that, when halfway across the world right now what I desscribed above is actually happening: someone is getting their door kicked in by some asshole 'islamic state' fighter who doesn't give a rat's ass about another human life, and they're going to drag the men out into the street and fucking kill them, and take the women and children and fucking enslave them, because they can. I got news for you, friend: There is no reasoning with these gods-be-damned animals, if there was then that's what would be happening, and if you can't see that then you need to wake the fuck up and get your head out of the gods-be-damned sand! By their own actions they have made it amply clear that the only way to deal with them is to kill them all, and if you continue to deny that then you're just fooling yourself. There is no magical speech you can give that is going to 'change hearts and minds' of ISIS and make them stop cutting off people's heads; they want to burn the world down to the ground and remake it in their own fucked-up twisted version of Islam, and they will kill everyone and anyone who gets in their way. I'm sorry, it sucks, it's horrifying, it's anti-civilization, it's anti-human, it's anti-life even, they are like the Berzerkers of Fred Saberhagen's science fiction novels, they want one thing and one thing only and there is no reasoning with them about it. You can even sit there and try to tell me "it's our fault we created them" and it doesn't fucking matter, we either kill them or they will kill everyone and everything you love, eventually. It's too late for talk. It's time for bombs and bullets, and that's the only way this gods-be-damned bullshit is going to end. I suggest you make your peace with that and move on with your life as best you can.

      To the guy who said this:

      The Koran instructs that all Muslims must move to live under a Caliphate if there is one. ISIS has now created one. In order to be a proper Muslim who follows their own holy book, they gotta support the Caliphate and they gotta support ISIS. The Koran is also very clear about what to do to Muslims who don't do that.

      The Quran, just like the Bible, is a very, very old book, written by just another human, and like the Bible, it's contents are incredibly out-of-date and not particularly relevant to living in the modern world. Just like fundamentalist Christians, who try to live strictly according to the Bible with no compromises, you're going to run into all sorts of trouble trying to live strictly according to the Quran. Of course this has little to nothing to do with these Sunni extremists who refer to themselves as the 'islamic state'; just like so many so-called Christian preachers do, they're using their own strict interpretation of the Quran as an excuse to be violent assholes, destroy people they don't want around, seize power and land, and generally get away with whatever animalistic violent bullshit they want to get away with. Honestly, if there was such a being as 'Allah', I'd hope he/she/it would erase these fuckers from the planet, for daring to commit such atrocities. Regardless any 'reasons' these violent assholes claim to have are irrelevant; they must be exterminated regardless, because they endanger and victimize the populations of entire countries in their bloodthirsty quest for power. 'No quarter asked or given' should be the gist of any Rules of Engagement with regards to them, since that's abou

    8. Re:Quicker by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is not a true Caliphate, because it does not operate according to generally accepted Islamic principles. The rising tide if Islamophobia scares me a lot more than ISIS. The prospect of another holocause in, so called, civilized Western countries is becoming a very real possibility. The fact that the vast majority of Islamic teachers preach against Islamic fundamentalism, in general, and ISIS in particular, is simply ignored. I live in a country with 4 million Muslims and cannot recall a single case of one of them cutting off anyone's head. Indeed, I sometimes buy from a market where the majority of the traders are Muslims, and have never felt in the slightest bit threatened. How many bad experiences with Muslims have you personally experienced? (Please do not say you felt threatened because they dress funny.)

    9. Re:Quicker by KGIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We have this thing, supposedly, called the rule of law. This means that you're not guilty until the state has achieved the burden of proof required to deem you guilty. As deplorable as these people are, I'd rather we not dismantle the very principles we've agreed on in an effort to contain or punish them. The adage about staring into an abyss is acceptable here.

      Your kind of thinking is how we ended up with things like the PATRIOT ACT and other assorted rights restrictions. How many rights are you willing to give up? You know, any rights you give up for these people are also your rights and even if you don't make use of them personally, there are many others who do - and not for bad effect. The very idea of needing to prove guilt is not something that should ever be subject to debate unless it means increasing the burden of proof. Another adage, one that it is better for ten men to go free than to put one innocent one behind bars, is also appropriate.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. if they really want revenge by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    they would sign up for the military and go bust some rear

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:if they really want revenge by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, except that the US military is deployed in the wrong places, killing the wrong people. World peace would cost the military too much, so we make sure we'll always have enemies. Lots of enemies. It's better for the economy.

    2. Re:if they really want revenge by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a rather simplistic viewpoint you have there. These Sunni extremists who call themselves 'Islamic State' are using social media on the Internet as a major component in their propaganda machine, and also using it to recruit useful idiots to their cause, often in a very literal sense. Some group that has little to no regard for the legality of their actions (unlike actual law enforcement and government military) that can hack their way into their Facebook, Twitter, and other Internet assets and expose the operators behind them (and maybe their physical location) would be extremely disruptive to their operations on that front. Meanwhile 'signing up for the military' really won't do shit except give these assholes more targets to shoot at. Personally I send all my best to this particular faction of Anonymous, and wish them good hunting and much success in disrupting these assholes as much as possible.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    3. Re:if they really want revenge by freeze128 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Fighting ISIS by joining the military is a lot like fighting Morpheus in the matrix. i.e., "Do you think that how fast you move has anything to do with muscles in this place? Do you think that's air you're breathing?"

      If you join the military, all you will be doing is bombing (maybe) combatants in Syria. The people who perpetrated the attack in Paris obviously were not in Syria.

      Anonymous has the ability to sniff out and actually PREVENT further attacks.

      Of course, they also have the ability to SWAT Counter-strike playing college kids who are no threat.

  3. Re:Well, at least they're hard to retaliate agains by tsotha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IS will ignore Anonymous, military, cops, and intelligence services in favor of unsuspecting theatergoers and people out for an evening at a cafe. Military and cops shoot back, and Anonymous is simply impotent against an organization like IS.

  4. Uh-oh, this is not good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those ISIS guys better watch now! Anonymous will be sending a barrage of pizzas to them that they didn't even order, and probably posting some dick pics on the their websites!

  5. Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Two weeks ago more people were killed on the russian plane. Where did these anonymous guys were at that time?

    1. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well thing about that was that the Russians did deserve it. And yes I mean the ordinary Russians, the same ones who support Putin with 80% approval ratings. When the "rebels" in Ukraine shut down the air liner, not one of them gave a fuck.

  6. Re:Well, at least they're hard to retaliate agains by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IS will ignore Anonymous, military, cops, and intelligence services in favor of unsuspecting theatergoers and people out for an evening at a cafe. Military and cops shoot back, and Anonymous is simply impotent against an organization like IS.

    That depends on whether Anonymous plans do useless stuff like tear down ISIS websites or something useful like hack the PCs of ISIS leaders and steal their financial records or details of their oil smuggling operation which would be most useful to the military and the cops even if it would probably embarrass Turkish president Erdoan and his AKP party pretty severely but then they have it coming.

  7. Re:The thing about the "bombing ISIS positions"... by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And really, we all know this isn't going to be won from the air.

    I'm no proponent of "Victory through Air-Power," but as long as we have Air Supremacy, we might as well make proper use of it. (Why go all the trouble to get it if we're not going to use it?) Cut their supply lines, bomb any supply dumps we can locate and attack any truck convoys we find. That will isolate their front-line troups, making it easier for our ground forces to smash them and win the war. Make no mistake: it's the infantry and armor who are going to finish this in the long run, but the Air Force can make their job much easier if they do their part properly.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  8. Re:The thing about the "bombing ISIS positions"... by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It sounds ridiculous on the face of it because everyone is nominally adimantly opposed to it, but that is an actual possibility here. If any coalition ground troops end up getting deployed in response to these (or future) attacks, they'd take over eastern Syria, where Daesh has its "caliphate"...but stop advancing west because A) they have no interest in taking land from the FSA and probably don't want to turn the Army of Conquest into a hostile force, B) Russia is heavily bombing there, and C) Russia would only let go of Latakia through their cold dead hands - it has their only Mediterranean naval base, their largest airbase in the region, one of their most important listening posts, etc. So you have the "clearly Russian" zone, the "clearly Coalition" zone, and then this in-between squabble area (including Damascus).

    Of course, this is all assuming that Russia can actually defend Latakia against the rebels. I mean, normally I'd assume that, but they've done a pretty crappy job of it so far. But I bet they could put a lot more assets there if they needed to (though it might take weakening their forces on Donbas). It's easy for them to deploy air assets to Syria because they're not needed in Donbas, but if they take too much ground forces from Donbas and Crimea, Ukraine might be tempted to reescalate. The other issue is Iran, Iran could also commit itself a lot more to Syria if they need to... the current few thousand Iranian troops (plus Hezbollah) is one thing, but it's a small fraction of their total military manpower. Plus, a lot of the Syrian/Russian/Iranian/Hezbollah assets are currently directed on the Aleppo offensive, which actually has gone pretty well for them... so that could be redirected to Latakia if need be. And to Hama too, the way things are going on that front.

    --
    Hello from Sputnik 2. I am receiving you.
  9. If you really want to know who is responsible ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... look to Saudi Arabia !

    ...Why does anyone require 'due diligence' and fact-checking against insane violent assholes like these Sunni extremist fuckstains that laughingly call themselves the 'Islamic State'

    ... Well, for a start, to make sure that's who's actually responsible ...

    People simply can *NOT* get radicalized out of a vaccuum

    Most of the sunni moslems get radicalized from the teachings of their imams, from the hate filled sermons uttered by the imams on the pulpit inside the mosques all over the world, and from the teachings they received when they were studying their 'peaceful religions' inside the madrasa ... and most of the imams, the mosques, the madrasas of the sunni sect in the whole world are being funded by the oil money from Saudi Arabia

    Every year the Saudis provide funding for all these programs, to the tunes of tens of billions of dollars --- yes, you read it right, TENS OF BILLIONS

    This has been an open secret for decades

    The government of the United States of America knows about Saudi's funding of radicalization of moslems

    The governments of the European countries know about Saudi's funding of radicalizations of moslems

    All the nations in the world know it too, but no one dare to tell Saudi Arabia to stop radicalizing the moslems because everyone needs their oil

  10. Re:Sometimes there are no innocents by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure. Except the IS doesn't have any cities. They occupy some territory in Iraq and Syria, where they're mostly bent on executing the majority of the populace. The Nazis would have laughed pretty hard if the allied strategy in WWII was extermination bombing of Jewish neighbourhoods in Paris.

    You're absolutely right, the way to attack the islamic state is to attack it's ability to wage war. Stop converting moderate muslims into new recruits, stop littering the area with weapons and political instability, and work towards not giving any more money to oil rich middle eastern dictatorships.

  11. Re:A kind of "Nous sommes des Inconnus" .. by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IS is one of the largest threats to our way of life in the west,

    No. They have no military capability in the West, and can only sponsor terrorism operations. Terrorism doesn't threaten our way of life, although overreactions to terrorism can.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes