Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Goes After Donald Trump
HughPickens.com writes: CBS reports that hot on the heels of its campaign against ISIS, the shadowy hackers' collective known as Anonymous is going after a new target: Donald Trump. The latest Anonymous operation — #OpTrump — was announced in a YouTube video featuring a masked activist claiming to speak for the group. In a computer-generated voice, he takes aim at Trump's proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States, claiming "This is what ISIS wants." He goes on to say that "the more the United States appears to be targeting Muslims, not just radical Muslims," the more ISIS will be able to recruit sympathizers. The video concludes with Anonymous' now-familiar threat: "You have been warned, Mr. Donald Trump. We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. Expect us."
After a video message was posted, the website of Trump Tower in New York City went down for at least an hour. However the campaign has yet to have much success. Despite the group's apparent distributed-denial-of-service attack, which aimed to take down a web server by flooding it with fake traffic, the Trump Tower website was up and running by 11 a.m. and the alleged damage might not have been apparent, to visitors to the page, because a cached version of Trump's site was programmed to hold the fort in the event of an attack or maintenance issues.
After a video message was posted, the website of Trump Tower in New York City went down for at least an hour. However the campaign has yet to have much success. Despite the group's apparent distributed-denial-of-service attack, which aimed to take down a web server by flooding it with fake traffic, the Trump Tower website was up and running by 11 a.m. and the alleged damage might not have been apparent, to visitors to the page, because a cached version of Trump's site was programmed to hold the fort in the event of an attack or maintenance issues.
Doesn't anonymous usually attack groups that legal processes can't/won't stop? We have a process to stop Trump, it's called "Voting". Maybe anonymous should stay out of it.
Anonymous declares war on city of Orlando (28/Jun/2011)
Anonymous vs. Zetas: Hackers Taking On The Drug Cartel (02/Nov/2011)
Anonymous wages war on Westboro Baptist Church (17/Dez/2012)
Anonymous Declares War on Singapore (06/Nov/2013)
Given the fallback on the last weeks hoax declaration of war on ISIS by Mexican cartel leader 'El Chapo' the media is showing that the powers of "the fourth state" given to them is not being used to inform the public but to entertain them, distracting from more important issues (and of course, to sell advertisement).
"On the heels of..."
So, they are done with ISIS?
Sounds like ADD to me.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Welcome to the modern face of "social justice" where if they don't get what they want, they'll make shit up or attack people. With that, social justice is no different then a mob of people who would rather ignore the rule of law and take it into their own hands.
Om, nomnomnom...
Anonymous isn't a structured group. It's a label that individuals apply to themselves. There is no hierarchy, there is no leadership, there is no organizational goal, there is no long term plan. Literally anyone can be Anonymous because it's almost a misnomer to apply the Capital-A to the word.
If Anonymous (with Capital-A) is anything, it's a mindset to do something that's not entirely socially acceptable or whose means are not necessarily acceptable for reasons that are not necessarily personally beneficial. As such, people can ascribe their behaviors to Anonymous. That's why there's no stopping Anonymous, because there isn't even a head to cut-off.
In some ways Anonymous is the anti-Borg. There is no structure, there are only ideas and people voluntarily choosing to pursue the ideas that others come up with, or not choosing to pursue those ideas. If it wasn't for the Guy Fawkes masks and black hoodies I don't think that the mystique surrounding the word would exist at all.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I'm a huge supporter of free speech, and structured or not, they shouldn't go around being the thought police. Don't like what somebody says? Let's chill their speech by doxing them and sending threats their way. Still don't like what they say? Let's silence them entirely by DDoSing their website.
I could get behind actions against ISIS because ISIS is a violent organization. The KKK isn't (except in very rare cases) and Donald Trump certainly isn't. The best way to let them fall is to let them continue speaking, while making sure anybody else can continue poking holes in their argument. We're already doing that quite well, and we don't need Anonymous silencing them.
If "we" are anti-Illuminati, why are we then anti-Trump? Makes no fucking sense.
You see, Trump is after all the most anti-Illuminati presidential candidate in last decade... the only candidate without shadowy figures behind him (he personally is that figure!). One of few candidates (other probably being Rand Paul) that wants to tackle the fed and fix the totally broken Tax system.
Trump's playing by the rules Obama set, plus a few of his own.
Trump's rules include a fairly standard negotiating tactic- demand 3x what you want, so when the dust settles, you've got about what you wanted. He's also 'assuming the sale.' I don't wish to see him as president, but he's giving a (admittedly bombastic) voice to legitimate concerns many Americans have. The American left is used to being able to shout down politically inconvenient discussions by shouting "RACIST!", Trump simply says 'F you' and moves on. People love that.
As for following Obama's rules, I'll just quote a recent article: (Paywalled; my apologies)
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
The republicans should have long ago left the right out in the cold and come center (fiscally conservative, small government, socially progressive), they would've enjoyed a great deal more support than the religious right can provide
Those are the positions of the Libertarian Party, which typically gets less than 1% of the vote. You are vastly overestimating the level of support for small government and personal freedom. The Republican Party currently has their largest congressional majority since before the Great Depression. 2/3rds of governors are Republican, and most state legislatures are also dominated by Republicans. Pandering to social conservatives and authoritarians has been enormously successful.
" Uneducated supporters " Allow me another explanation if I may. Perhaps Trump supporters are well versed in what the status quo politician does once in office. Perhaps they are tired of voting for what is supposed to be different candidates, only to realize that, yet again, once in office their candidate is merely a clone of the previous administrations ideals. The only way to shake the system up, is to start by not voting in the very same people that want to keep it that way. Nothing scares the two parties more than a potential third party candidate since it effectively says " We the people are quite tired of your bullshit games. " I read on /. all the damn time about how it's the voters fault for re-electing the same clowns that are responsible for where we are today. Yet, when folks are considering deviating from that course, they get nothing but a ration of shit from the very same people because they're not voting for candidate X or Y.
Considering the candidate field and past experience with the typical bought and paid for politicians we currently have, I'm more than willing to give Trump his shot. Seriously, do you think he can possibly to any worse than another Bush ? Clinton ? or Obama ?
I don't care if hes arrogant, condecending or otherwise unpleasant in how he deals with people. If he gets the job done, that's all I give a damn about.
To do so, you have to be direct and to the point. Kissing everyones ass for re-election prospects is how we currently do business and that, more than anything else, needs to change if this country ever wants to be taken seriously again.
That's why there's no stopping Anonymous, because there isn't even a head to cut-off.
That's also one of the reasons why ultimately there is no fearing Anonymous.
The republican position says that small government is the American ideal - except with regard to abortion, prostitution, pornography, government-sponsored events to tell citizens who, how and when they should be worshiping, gambling, and a ton of others. They used to push hard for action at the federal level to prevent states from recognising gay marriage - until the supreme court ruling on the issue, at which point they declared that marriage was a state matter and the federal government was overstepping its bounds by regulating that.
The real republican position is almost identical to the democrat position: Politics is expensive. Appeal to voters where possible, but exercise caution not to upset the wealthy and corporate donors that provide the money for political campaigning.
I agree with this. The best part of Trump is he is causing honest discussions about issues important to US citizens (funny to hear someone say that?)
Before Trump talking about closing the border to Mexico was not allowed. If you even suggested deporting a single illegal you were branded a racist. Now we are talking about if it is possible to close the border, if it is possible to deport the illegals, how much it would cost, what are the repercussions, etc. Before Trump you couldn't see a debate like that, which is funny because everyone keeps saying he is so dumb.
Stopping Muslim immigrants until they can be vetted properly. Sounds reasonable to me, but I'm told I'm a bigot for agreeing with that. Now I find out Jimmy Carter did nearly the EXACT same thing with Iran. Is Carter a bigot? Or instead of the right going extreme right has the left gone extreme left. It appears that the left has gone extreme if you look at facts like this.
Yea, people don't like Trump because he is forcing honest debates about issues the left doesn't want talked about because they know they are on the losing side of it.
I like hearing these debates that Trump has made possible. Can he deport all the illegals? Sounds like no, but before he came along we weren't even allowed to talk about trying to do that. Closing the border with Mexico, is that possible? Sounds like yes, but that once again was a debate we were not allowed to hear about before Trump.
As much as they don't like him, he has brought back actual debate on REAL ISSUES.
The republican position says that small government is the American ideal - except with regard to ...
Also ethanol subsidies, fossil fuel subsidies, farm subsidies, massive funding for the military industrial complex, massive funding for the War on Drugs, etc. In other words, they don't actually support small government at all. That makes sense, since small government rhetoric wins votes, but small government policies do not.
This is an absolutely false equivalence.
Not to say that Jimmy Carter made the right call there - I personally am liberal enough to think he probably did not, and likely would have been pretty upset with the decision, as I am with many decisions President Obama has made - but it is absolutely not the same thing. We are NOT in a state of military conflict with the entire religion of Islam, as we were with Iran at the time. If you believe that we are, then THAT is the problem.
You could use this move as an argument to reject Syrian visas and expel Syrian diplomats if you want. Except we already did. We severed relationships and closed our embassy in 2012. Officially they can still apply for immigration visas, but we've essentially made the process impossible. Obviously, we are (sort of) accepting refugees, but they are thoroughly vetted to make sure they are not connected either to the Syrian government or Isis, both of which we are in conflict with. So... yeah. We're already doing everything Carter did, pretty much. Have been for years. And refugees were allowed in from Iran during the Carter period too - one of your quotes specifically says "except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons".
Assuming all people who believe in the religion of Islam are at war with our country is a completely wrongheaded idea that can and should be met with anger and disgust. (Though probably not computer-based terrorism of our own. Let's just vote against Trump and continue to try to overwhelm his narrative with one of reasonable people who are doing their best not to be bigoted.)
Define "herd". To a rancher, a "herd" is the sum of heads of cattle. So if you have all of your cattle in a single group, and they are wandering (or driven) towards a pen called "ISIS", that's a herd focusing on ISIS. Now, some of them split. There are now two groups. You can't count the number in each group, but you can see there are two. One is going towards "ISIS" pen, and the other towards "Trump" pen. They are all the same rancher herd. But, to a casual observer, they may be two herds. And the progress of one group towards pen Trump in no way impedes the original destination of pen ISIS.
The problem with you putting them into pigeon holes, is that you are trying to fit round pegs into square holes.
Some cows must be at the front of the herd, but the fact that they are a leader at that moment doesn't imbue them with any mystical or special qualities of permanence. Generally they don't even moo unless they see that there is sufficient other cows around them that they are a herd in and of themselves. Government only works when people agree. And Anonymous is anarchy, which obeys the same rules. So long as enough want the same thing, it is the will of Anonymous. When you have to start spending money to convince people that they like you when they don't, you have modern democracy, not anarchy, and Anonymous has enough cows in the herd that they don't need to pay people to march with them to look stronger than they actually are.
But yes, in a world that ignores anarchy, defining it is hard. In practice (African government) anarchy=dictatorship by warlords, as a power vacuum is filled by evil. Power of controlling the people, there's a zero sum game. You control the people in a village, or someone else does. On the Internet, there is no zero sum game. Billions could follow you tomorrow, or none. And you can follow a billion people, or none. So the absence of power doesn't leave a vacuum. In that context anarchy can exist. And is becomes democracy (the mob rule kind). Anarchy is where everyone does what they want. So lots of people who want the same thing will find they naturally congregate. 5 people who go drinking together because they got in the habit of going to the same bar at the same time doesn't mean that they have to have a leader, or any structure. If one had to change his drinking day, he'd tell the others, and then do it. If the others did or didn't change their day to match would be from their free choice, not from force or coercion. So would that be democracy or anarchy?
Most people can't conceive of such an arangement. The meet-up sites all have to have a "leader" for an organization. Structure is assumed in everything so that people close their minds. Yes, that makes someone "stupid" if they can't conceive of Anonymous.
Anonymous is billions of cows. Some are off grazing by themselves. Others are moving in an identifiable direction. That they aren't all moving together doesn't make them not a "herd" in the eyes of the ranch owner. That they don't have a head cow doesn't make them disorganized. They are Legion. They are Everywhere, and Nowhere. They are Cow.
Learn to love Alaska
What I tell you three times is true:
Islam is not a country. Iran is not a religion.
Learn the difference, and stop polluting your brain with nonsense from Infowars.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
How do you even screen for Muslims? If their name is something like Abu Bassir Al-Mohamadi does that automatically make them Muslim? What about Muslims that have lived in Canada or Europe for 20+ years and maybe practice once or twice a month, would they be barred from entry to the US? Can they recant their faith and be atheist? Would they have to write a letter to some institute of Islam, commit apostasy and face possible death penalties in their respective country?
Iranians are at least citizens of Iran. I don't know if Carter's ban extended to Iranian nationals that moved to other countries and no longer held Iranian citizenship, but it's at least screen-able and clear cut.