Slashdot Mirror
ISIS Makes Direct Threats Against Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey (cnet.com)
wjcofkc writes: A group of ISIS supporters have threatened to take down Facebook and Twitter, as well as their leaders. In a 25-minute propaganda video released by a group calling itself "the sons of the Caliphate army," photographs of both technology leaders are riddled with bullets. The video was first spotted by Vocativ. The threats are being made over the two companies' efforts to seek out and remove terrorist-related content on their respective platforms. The group is quoted as saying, "If you close one account, we will take 10 in return and soon your names will be erased after we delete your sites, Allah willing, and will know that we say is true."
Oh, I got my terrorist organizations mixed up. My bad #notFBI
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
A world without Facebook? Whatever would we do?
Those who think the Pen is mightier than the Sword are about to learn the unpoetic truth that a person with only a pen needs to have some really good friends with swords.
Just in time for the Zuck to respond with *angry face*.
Life is not for the lazy.
All those Asian and Jewish women who work for Facebook will kick you sorry asses back to the stone ages.
So the lesson is that even a sadistic bunch of mediaevalist nutbag bandits aren't entirely bad...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
>> 25-minute propaganda video
Anyone seen SlashDot's video editor lately? A 25-minute rambling screed sounds like the kind of thing that's typically posted here.
Why is that funny? Do you think these people are particularly difficult to assassinate?
29. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less
(The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries)
Yes, otherwise they would have just done so rather than threaten to do so.
Nothing to do with this Rite? http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
It would make sense if they were to kindly list the accounts they want to stay open. Otherwise how is Facebook supposed to know which is an Isis supporting page and which is a Ted Cruz supporting page.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I'll believe it when it happens. I think it is just a bogus attempt by ISIS to try to win American's favor.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I feel kinda bad about this, but part of me really hopes Zuckerberg is the one threat they actually follow through on.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
I think the end of Facebook and Twitter would actually make the world a significantly better place for many reasons.
Just one example would be during my commute every day its unusual to not see multiple morons (for whatever reason its nearly always women) that are drifting into other lanes, suddenly hard braking, or or causing multiple other problems by not keeping up with the busy traffic flow around them, because updating their facebook status is clearly more important than paying any attention to controlling 2 tons of metal barelling down the freeway.
I think part of the reason why the threat is funny is because they are threatening to "delete" Facebook, like you can just click on it and press the Del key and, that's it, no more Facebook. It's also funny because you have some sort of international terrorist group threatening the founders of social networks because they keep getting kicked off. They don't sound so tough and scary when they're whining about getting kicked off Twitter.
Anyway, it's funny in the same way that Donald Trump being the GOP nominee for president is funny. You don't expect them to have success so it's funny to see the bluster. And, if they actually did have success, then yes, the entire world would recoil in shock and horror, stock markets would collapse, there would be a general panic, laws would be passed that restrict our rights, and the US military would immediately spring into action and start attacking everything in sight.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
While ISIS is threatening Zuckerberg, Zuckerberg is threatening to `investigate' his employees for failing to indulge BLM grievance mongering.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Am I right?
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
isis and al quaeda are a bit like democrats and republicans. two ostensibly opposing forces both working to destroy humanity.
This is the first time I've ever sided with Farcebook -- FTFY.
is that they're very, very media savvy. They understand the value of PR, and are not above saying things they don't have any real plans to do just for the publicity effect. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they'd be happy to lop off a few CEO heads (especially the Jew), but I'm guessing their primary aim is to keep us talking about them.
And you know, we do have to talk about them, because that's the way our society operates and they know it. But we don't necessarily have to give their chest-thumping any credence. I think that's the primary thing they want; if we treat them as powerful then they will gain credibility and that will attract adherents. So let's review; the guys they're threatening are famous, high profile billionaires. They're already attractive targets for domestic terrorists and criminals; they're not soft targets for any screwball ISIS might inspire to martyrdom.
ISIS also can get other things from from making largely empty threats. They can get whip up American anti-Muslim sentiment, which serves ISIS's purposes very well. The droves of Muslims eager to get away from ISIS's control undermines the legitimacy ISIS's claim to having established a new caliphate, so they are very quick to publicize the fact that anyone trying to leave is going to get kicked by Hungarian cameramen.
If you don't want to be an unwitting ISIS stooge, take a deep breath and put them in perspective. Sure, they're a bunch of dangerous fanatics, but they're 6000 miles away. And yes, they're bound to have a few homicidal crackpot adherents here in the USA, but those crackpots are just a drop in our big bucket of homegrown homicidal crackpots, and we hardly give our native nutcases any attention at all. We're already taking our homegrown fanatics and mass killers in stride, so it's just a marginal effort to worry about ISIS.
That's ISIS in a nutshell for us: they're a marginal concern. Not to say ISIS doesn't have a place on the list of the things we need to be concerned with, but it hardly deserves to be the center of our foreign policy, much less the center of our national policy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Guess the ISISsies haven't gotten the hint yet.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
You know, if you put Robert Downey on it, it'd make for a good movie.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
Without the use of such raghead terminology such as Caliphate and Allah, we wouldn't even know if it was genuine.
PROTHERO: Do you believe this crap, Dascombe?
DASCOMBE: It's not our job to believe it, Lewis. Our job is to tell the people --
Why would you want those morons back out on the general net again?
Taking down facebook would be the worst thing to happen to the net's signal to noise ratio sense the shutdown of AOL.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
These are just typical internet toughguys. With all the bluster of an angry 12yr old playing Call of Duty. All big talk .... no common sense.
Actually, the zeroes are free and plentiful, it's the ones that cost you.
Of course, with certain types of memory the whole thing is flip flopped, much like juice/cider in Canada.
Maybe. Had Ghandi simply been executed (ie martyred) that might have catalyzed change as well; although the transition would have been very, very, different.
Doubtful in the Hitler, Stalin, Mao context. Sadly he would likely have been martyred long before he had a following. Ghandi's own strategy suggests that you are mistaken. First you need to be ignored, then you need to be laughed at. Hitler, Stalin, or Mao would have used a different strategy and started with execute rather than ignore. For moral persuasion to work the audience needs to be somewhat moral.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
.... I'm actually inclined to cheer that bunch of goat fuckers on.
Yes, it is funny. Those clowns are by default funny, and their insane antics that border on Korea's Li'l Kim and his megalomania are even more.
Sorry, but I can't take those asshats serious. We're talking about grown men who get all riled up over someone offending their imaginary buddy by drawing a picture of him.
How the FUCK could you take lunatics like that serious?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If the media are closed to you, then you just disappear. Never heard of again. Stalin had no problem with opposition - they just disappeared, and nobody dared ask where they were. The disappearance of most of the clergy of the Orthodox Church under Stalin is the most obvious example of that.
They are watching the Slashdot videos.
Because the whole shit has somehow turned into some kind of substitute religion. It no longer has any connection whatsoever with reality, what matters is what they believe in and no amount of proof against it could make it waver. If anything, it makes you a heretic for bringing it up.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
True... true...
In the end, Facebook keeps the sanity levels in the rest of the internet on a manageable level by soaking up the majority of crazies.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Do I have to take sides? Can't I hope for total MAD?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh please yes.
I can only repeat myself: Whoever loses. We win.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ab-so-fucking-lutely!
The biggest weapon against these clowns is humour. They simply cannot handle it.
A bunch of dudes all dressing the same with matching beards, it's like some sort of homo-erotica act.
"If you close one account, we will take 10 in return and soon your names will be erased after we delete your sites, Allah willing, and will know that we say is true."
But, what if Allah doesn't will it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
ISIS is so backwards their memory is probably first generation ECL. They need a whole data center to keep their one gigabyte of memory cool.
They should each make troll videos showing a burka'ed head fellating them while they eat bacon, drink a beer and wipe their butts with the ISIS flag. All while mumbling "Run from the bombs, run from the tanks, you can't handle the truth!"
Then auto-refresh Rickroll them.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Redouble the efforts, install a taskforce, pass a bill to subsidise on-line companies that have to cope with large amounts of propaganda from recognised terrorist groups!
And keep an eye and an ear out for their next complaint. ...
is that they're very, very media savvy. They understand the value of PR, and are not above saying things they don't have any real plans to do just for the publicity effect. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they'd be happy to lop off a few CEO heads (especially the Jew), but I'm guessing their primary aim is to keep us talking about them.
And you know, we do have to talk about them, because that's the way our society operates and they know it. But we don't necessarily have to give their chest-thumping any credence. I think that's the primary thing they want; if we treat them as powerful then they will gain credibility and that will attract adherents. So let's review; the guys they're threatening are famous, high profile billionaires. They're already attractive targets for domestic terrorists and criminals; they're not soft targets for any screwball Americans might inspire for votes. Americans also can get other things from from making largely empty threats. They can get whip up Middle East anti-Muslim sentiment, which serves America's purposes very well. The droves of Muslims eager to get away from America's control undermines the legitimacy America's claim to having established a new world order, so they are very quick to publicize the fact that anyone trying to leave is going to get kicked by Hungarian cameramen.
If you don't want to be an unwitting American stooge, take a deep breath and put them in perspective. Sure, they're a bunch of dangerous fanatics, but they're 1 mile away. And yes, they're bound to have a few homicidal crackpot adherents here in the Middle East / Asia, but those crackpots are just a drop in our big bucket of homegrown homicidal crackpots, and we hardly give our native nutcases any attention at all. We're already taking our homegrown fanatics and mass killers in stride, so it's just a marginal effort to worry about Americans.
That's Americans in a nutshell for us: they're a marginal concern. Not to say Americans doesn't have a place on the list of the things we need to be concerned with, but it hardly deserves to be the center of our foreign policy, much less the center of our national policy.
I was just waiting for some right wing idiot to bring in Twitter's non-existent attacks on right wingers.
As was commented elsewhere, the guy's one of those f***wits that feels the neat to bleat about the First Amendement while showing that they don't even understand the most basic aspects of it, viz. it applies to the US government, not to private entities like Twitter.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Yes, otherwise they would have been assassinated long ago.
There are two ways to destroy twitter or facebook. Invent a superior product and outcompete them, or buy the companies and shut them down. Of course, this won't happen, because it would mean removing the camel dicks from their mouths and/or rectums for a minute.
So you don't understand the meaning of that quote. That writers are killed in mass doesn't matter...
I don't understand. The fact that they get all riled up over someone offending their imaginary buddy is why you need to take them seriously.
What if Allah is not willing?
Just saying...
en masse
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
The audience isn't the government; it's the populus. And given that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were ultimately unsuccessful -- and only one by armed conflict -- I think it's safe to say that superior ideas triumphed over superior physical might.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I thought Baghdad Bob had died? "We will destroy Coalition Forces in the Mother of all Battles, their blood will run like crushed date juice down our beards" and stuff like that.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
Are we talking about ISIS or Trump supporters?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
populace
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Populous is what I meant to type, actually. But thanks.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I say leave them up, but start messing with them in useful was.
* Post events for a "Secret ISIS Supporters meeting at time X in place Y", kindly inform the FBI to be present
* Make sure all the targeted ads are for male enhancement and pork products
* Start messing with the messages in insidious ways, adding confusion to anyone following.
* Identify/track members to assist law enforcement
That would still be incorrect. Populous means having a large population. Two different words. Populous and populace.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Right, I was just pointing out that I also misspelled the word that I was using incorrectly to boot. :)
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
When Germany invaded the Soviet Union, Winston Churchill mused, "If Hitler had invaded Hell, I'd feel obliged to say some kind words about Satan in the House of Commons." Yay Zuckerberg! Yay Dorsey!
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Religions are ~2000 years old;
Humans are ~200,000 years old;
"Earth Is Flat" --Your Religion;
Religion was born when the first con-man met the first fool;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_ancient_history
Casteism
No. That's a good enough reason to lock them up in a mental institution, but that's basically it.
Why the fuck should I take lunatics serious? Do you take the bum with the "the end is near" sign around his neck standing on the street corner and babbling like the fool he is serious?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I am not prejudiced. I would treat those lunatics exactly the same way I treat the towelheaded lunatics.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The audience isn't the government; it's the populous.
You are missing the part about being executed before having a following.
And given that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were ultimately unsuccessful -- and only one by armed conflict -- I think it's safe to say that superior ideas triumphed over superior physical might.
Stalin was unchallenged until death. Mao was set aside in old age by other men with swords, others of power in Mao's government, not the populous. To this day those who speak out against the government in Russia and China risk jail or death. The Tiananmen Square massacre of peaceful protesters calling for communist party reform occurred in 1989, long after Mao, long after the party moved away from his extremism. But one thing remained, absolute control by the party, by the swords. The fact that not all swords think alike does not change this.
So you don't understand the meaning of that quote. That writers are killed in mass doesn't matter...
And you failed to comprehend the original point. That a pen can only succeed with friendly swords to protect it. Reality is that pens are secondary to swords. Your own argument admits that.
That's a good example of someone I would take very seriously under the right circumstances. He is probably crazy. If he's babbling away on the corner, and I pass by, and he starts following me or something, I'd get ready to defend myself. Far more so than if I'm walking on the sidewalk and some random person talking on their cell phone is walking next to me. Similarly if some random normal person immigrates to my country, no problem, but if some nutjob who wants to kill people who insult his prophet wants to come, to me that's a problem to take seriously.
It's not rational to ignore irrationality.