Anonymous Declare 'Total War' On Donald Trump, Threaten To 'Dismantle His Campaign' (businessinsider.com)

An anonymous reader writes from Business Insider's article: Hackers affiliated with the Anonymous hacktivist collective have vowed to relaunch cyber-operations against US presidential candidate Donald Trump [on April Fools' Day]. They threaten to "dismantle his campaign" by taking his election websites offline in a large-scale and orchestrated distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack. In December 2015, Anonymous officially "declared war" on Trump after a radical speech in which he said Muslims should be banned from entering the United States. The operation at the time resulted in a number of websites being targeted by hackers, but failed to have lasting impact. A new video statement has been posted to YouTube which claims the "loyalists and veterans" of Anonymous have decided to ramp up cyber-operations against Trump -- dubbed #OpTrump -- on a far larger scale than ever before. "Dear Donald Trump, we have been watching you for a long time and what we see is deeply disturbing. Your inconsistent and hateful campaign has not only shocked the United States of America [but] you have shocked the entire planet with your appalling actions and ideas. You say what your audience wants to hear but in reality you don't stand for anything except for your personal greed and power."
The websites targeted in the attack (so far) include trump.com, donaldjtrump.com, and trumphotelcollection.com. In addition, the hacktivists are also planning to release some of Donald Trump's personal information including a SSN, phone number, and contact information of his agent and legal representative.

Comments

Morons Just Don't Understand

[Anonymous Coward]

EVERYTIME some group has "declared war", insulted, demeaned, became "outraged", etc. about Trump or supporters, his popularity and support grew.

The actions of this immature group of mother's basement dwelling mouth breathers will only cement their reputations as such and make more Trump supporters.

Just from a rational point of view, shutting down political speech is never a good thing, no matter what that speech is. Because if they can do it to one candidate, it can be done to others.

Re:Morons Just Don't Understand

[gweihir]

Just from a rational point of view, shutting down political speech is never a good thing, no matter what that speech is. Because if they can do it to one candidate, it can be done to others.

Indeed. A fascist approach does not become any better because some "good" guys use it or because the goal is "noble".

Re:Morons Just Don't Understand

[bahrdo]

Indeed. Obama ran on "Hope and Change". Trump is running on "Make 'em Change". Hell, even Bernie's running an anti-establishment campaign in most respects. Unfortunately; Washington is so incredibly polarized that one person has no chance of effecting change, even if that person is the President. Any time they try, their efforts are poisoned by the opposition and then blamed for the outcome. Obama's been learning this for the past 8 years, and you can bet it would be no different if Trump were to win. People need to concentrate on Congressional races if we want to see any real change. We need to vote out the "do nothing's" and the "hardliners" and vote in some players who understand the importance of compromise. Then as we vote in these anti-establishment candidates to the Presidency, they might actually have a slim chance of delivering.

Re:Morons Just Don't Understand

[Darinbob]

Except that in the Democratic primary race 8 years ago, Obama actually sounded like a sane candidate. Most candidates dropped out after Iowa. And from then on Obama was the front runner and never the underdog. But people didn't think of him as a frontrunner from some reason. Despite any possible Democratic candidate providing change over Dubya's administration, Obama was the only one pushing that message. Clinton was running on a campaign of "I'm the inevitable winner so you may as well vote for me now".

Most of the candidates other than Obama were longer term insiders than Obama, so that probably helped him out a lot. Probably a lot of people tired of both Bill Clinton and G.W. Bush years. Edwards in third place was the only other candidate to get any delegates, there was not a long drawn out multi-way race like we have this year with Republicans (and I swear, I can't remember a damn thing about Edwards campaign). Obama really was very similar to Rubio; first time senator yet treated like an outsider, young with appeal among younger voters, occasional breaches of established party doctrine, etc (I'd have expected Rubio to do much better if the Republican demographics skewed a bit younger).

As for Trump, he didn't even start as an underdog, everyone assumed he was just there because he was bored and needed something to do with his money. His incessant claims that Obama wasn't a citizen meant most politicians of all stripes thought he was a kook so he was ignored. But he never acted like an underdog, from the very start he campaigned as if he were the best and most popular candidate, he just will never shut up about his poll numbers. He actually acts more like a rabid dog than an under dog, always on the attack. And this is really confusing political pundits because he's doing everything wrong and it seems to be working.

Re:Morons Just Don't Understand

[Mashiki]

Ive noticed this as well, its become more and more clear over the past 3 weeks that is the case. I blame Political correctness and SJWs for the rise in trump. its the rubber band effect. the side of political correctness has pushed too far, now its bouncing back in the opposite direction where people are starting to relate to trump due to what some see as non political correct and what others call hate speech. It was bound to happen

And you'd be right. And it's the same reason why Rubio and Cruz lost somewhere around 1m twitter followers between them after they started going off on the "Trump is really the one responsible for what happened in Chicago bit." People are tired of the regressive left doing something, and everyone going "but they're really not to blame...IT'S THE OTHER GUYS...HONEST..." And the second that Kasich decided that the "Illegals are the bestest things evar, and I'm going pro-amnesty" he started dropping in in the polls and losing followers faster then a rock dropping from orbit. People have simply had enough of the establishment pulling this.

Couple of other examples to back up your point, would be the University of Missouri, and the 20% loss of first year students, the $32m budget shortfall, problems retaining students on campus. Their solution? We're gonna do everything we can to get students in! Tell your friends! The email from the temporary dean even went as far as saying that "anyone who'd applied would be accepted as a student." If that doesn't people what happens when absolute craziness from the regressive left and SJW happen, it should by that point.

Re:Morons Just Don't Understand

[ultranova]

I blame Political correctness and SJWs for the rise in trump.

How about blaming the Republican voters who are voting for him?

its the rubber band effect. the side of political correctness has pushed too far, now its bouncing back in the opposite direction where people are starting to relate to trump due to what some see as non political correct and what others call hate speech.

If Republican voters find Trump to be the candidate who best embodies their political ideas, that's the fault of said voters and their party, not their opponents.

But it's always good to get a reminder of what conservatives actually mean by "personal responsibility": never their fault.

Re:Morons Just Don't Understand

[DrJimbo]

I blame Political correctness and SJWs for the rise in trump.

The Republicans have also been blamed for resorting to the politics of hate. The best explanation I've seen has two components:

1) The inclination of some people to turn to authoritarianism when times get rough.

2) The concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands is making things rough for the working class. Things aren't really bad yet (like in the great depression) but people's prospects are bleak. They are worse off now than they were 10 years ago without much hope in sight.

If this simple analysis is correct then the problem is not Trump. There are always Trumps around. The problem is that economic times (more accurately, prospects) are bad enough that a sizable fraction of the population is turning to a strongman/bully who promises to protect them even if those promises don't make any rational sense.

This has several implications. First, if there is a successful large-scale terrorist attack in the US then this could easily raise the overall level of fear enough to sweep Trump into the White House. Second, if the powers-that-be stay in power and continue their policies of transferring wealth away from the working class then the levels of economic distress and fear will grow, creating even more support for Trump or the next authoritarian strongman/bully who comes along.

The only real solution is to stop waging economic warfare on the working class. Unfortunately, even if Bernie Sanders gets elected, it is going to be nigh on impossible to quickly change the course of the best government that money could buy.

Somebody is fighting irrelevance...

[gweihir]

I think Anonymous is largely irrelevant and powerless these days and its members know it.

There's a much easier solution to Trump

[neilo_1701D]

Vote.

Taking down servers, defacing websites... all petty vandalism. Vote on election day; the one day when your voice is heard and counts.

Re:There's a much easier solution to Trump

[pak9rabid]

I thought you had to be at least 18 to vote ;).

Re:Yawn...

[AchilleTalon]

The brain dead script kiddies declare war on Trump. Really?

Do they know anything about democracy? Let the people not choose Trump as President and that's all. Left the democracy alone and get a life anonymous kids.

the vote itself

[argStyopa]

As much as I despise DT himself, do they not understand the impact of their self-righteous vigilantism?

If they'd just *quietly* attacked him, slowly DDOS'ing his sites and businesses, it could have been months before the news got out, all the while doing damage to the campaign.

But the "look how awesome we are fighting evil" grandstanding is going to resonate in PRECISELY the opposite way with the bulk of US voters who will - I guarantee you - sympathize with him against a 'shadowy internet mafia'.

The only way they're going to HURT him now is if you're able to hack the voting machines; thankfully Diebold almost certainly installed backdoors for (the Republicans/the Democrats/the Russians/the Illuminati/whatever cabal you prefer to fear) so maybe that's still possible.

I vs I

[HalAtWork]

Time to fight idiocy with idiocy?

Words mean more than actions to Anonymous...

[XxtraLarGe]

Obama orders ten times the number of air strikes as Bush, and nothing, killing thousands of Muslims (many of whom were non-combatants) and nothing . But Trump bloviates about banning Muslims and Anonymous loses their heads...

No, I'm not a Trump supporter. Yes, I support offering refuge to Syrian refugees.

Re:Words mean more than actions to Anonymous...

[Mitreya]

Under Obama the rules of engagement changed dramatically, the rules now require that there be no known civilian casualties.

You do know that this is achieved by decreeing that all males of military age are automatically considered militants? So the rules achieved "no known civilian casualties" by assuming that if you are killed then you were a militant. (Citation)

The number of civilians killed in strikes has dramatically decreased.

Citation needed -- including who counts as "civilian" in this decrease.

Obama deserves credit for halting the indiscriminate killings with bombs and missiles

Obama has appointed himself as a Judge/Jury/Executioner, and redefined words (such as "imminent threat" or "indiscriminate killings") rather than halted anything. Citation

Re:~50%

[arbiter1]

Yet more deserving people get left alone aka Hillary and Obama

Whose side are you on?

[westlake]

Hackers affiliated with Anonymous threaten to "dismantle [Trump's] campaign" by taking his election websites offline in a large-scale and orchestrated distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack.

Trump isn't running a web-based campaign.

But he is damn good at demonizing his enemies and making then look like fools when they try to take him down.

False Flag operation against Anonymous?

[Freshly Exhumed]

The group that is thought to have killed ORCA (Karl Rove's magic Republican Party database ploy to ficitiously win Ohio) was Anonymous. Their calibre of work is far, far beyond what this announcement promises. I suspect this is a False Flag operation aimed at boosting Trump "victimization" rhetoric while lumping in Anymous with supposed Mexican rapists and Trump's other favourite targets.

Re:Free speech...publicizing contacts

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Were they wearing brown shirts when they "declared war" on a candidate exercising his right to free speech?

The irony here, is that the Nazis used disruption to come to power. The Nazis only had a few folks in parliament, but through disruption, they managed to derail the democratic process and grind the operation of government to a halt.

I bet these "protesters" would be surprised to learn that they are using tried and trusted methods of the Nazis.

And the most famous "Total War" speech I can think of was the one made by Joseph Goebbels.

Even Bernie said on the weekend, "You have a right to protest. You do not have a right to disrupt."

Now if only the people who think they are supporting him would only listen to him.

Prioritize

[Livius]

There's vigilanteism, and then there's disrupting an election. People attempting to silence political opinions that they disagree with are a far greater threat to civilization than Trump is.

I really don't want to take Trump's side on anything but in this case there is no contest.

Of course, the Trump phenomenon goes away on its own as soon as the Republican Party puts up a candidate worth voting for. The problem is they've never done that before and they don't know where to start.

Re:~50%

[Anonymous Coward]

If Hilary doesn't count as a psychopath, then what the hell is she? Well, I mean, beyond somebody who if we lived in a just world would be in prison right now.

Forget the Muslims

[cyber-vandal]

Trump's being attacked by the 72 virgins.

Re:~50%

[amRadioHed]

I feel the best way to destroy the Trump campaign is to keep letting people hear him.

Re:~50%

[fluffernutter]

That's placing an awful lot of faith in the ability of the average American to think logically and rationally for themselves.

No Longer a Fan of Anonymous

[Irate Engineer]

To a certain extent I was a fan of some of Anonymous' shenanigans, but this isn't right. I am by no means a fan of Donald Trump, and the electoral system is far from perfect, but to have a third party with foreign membership fucking with our elections is a direct attack on our democratic ideals (flawed though they may be).

Anonymous - please fuck off. You aren't the Robin Hoods of the Internet any more.

Re:~50%

[johanw]

If I were American I would vote for Sanders. However, if the choice was between Trump and H. Clinton it would be a close call, I'm not sure which of those I dislike the most. My guess is that Trump is a little less a warmonger than Clinton.

Re:Nothing to see.

[matthewv789]

Among other things, "other people" are not running for President of the United States of America.

With Hillary, yeah, you could say "so what if she's corrupt as shit and lies through her teeth? Don't all politicians do that?" And I think most politicians today are at least somewhat like that, but I feel that she's worse than average, at least worse than average among Democrats. But still, if nobody better were running, sure, she might be the least of all evils and many people would overlook that, well, cause she's a Democrat with a capital D (it worked for Bill). And she's a Woman, too, and don't we all want to elect the first female president, regardless of who she is?

But actually, all of her scandals and the awkward things she says (to put it very politely, I really mean the incessant stream of bald-faced lies) are sort of never-ending, with another scandal or mis-statement right around the corner seemingly daily, and are signs of a much deeper problem. And that problem is the whole reason why so many people are so thoroughly disgusted with politics and the entire American political system in the first place. Therefore, since they're trying to change that oligarchic, plutocratic, corporatistic, corrupt, war-oriented system of power and money that's taken away our democracy and ignored the voters (aside from lying to them to try to get votes), and since she's the shining example of everything that is wrong with that system, why would they want to vote for her? Why would they refrain from calling out her corruption and lies every time they see them?

Re:Nothing to see.

[DaHat]

As has been well documented, when she was in office there was no regulation saying that a secretary of state couldn't use their own e-mail server

You forgot the part about policies regarding classified information... the laws regarding which she is being investigated for

Oops!

Sorry to destroy your narrative.

Idiots

[rsilvergun]

Trump is not the enemy. He's just a reflection of the hate and desperation white working class Voters feel in the face of an eroding standing of living. Rubio, Cruz, Kasich. Their your enemies. They're the ones who openly attack the working class and drive down wages while raising taxes on the poor and working class. Take care of them, protect the Workers and bring back the middle class and the fear and hate Trump is reflecting back will dissipate in the wind.

Re:The Tepublican machine tells us

[BarbaraHudson]

She still hasn't released those speeches she gave to wall street - one of which she was paid $415,00 for. She only changed her position on same-sex marriage after it was obvious which way the wind was blowing. She sent secret information to people who were not supposed to be privy to it (to which the email server is just incidentally involved).

That's three to start.

The current FBI investigation has been going on since last August, but only confirmed in February. And this has nothing to do with republicans - this is an FBI probe under a Democratic president.

Clinton is Not liked or trusted by a majority of the voters.

On the positive side, 8% of Americans say they like her, 7% describe her as capable and qualified, 5% as experienced, 3% as strong and 3% as a good politician. Smaller percentages consider her honest or smart.

Overall, 29% of Americans offer a positive observation about Clinton while 51% express something negative. The rest have either a neutral comment or no opinion. This loosely fits with her overall image among national adults as measured on Gallup tracking, which is 42% favorable and 51% unfavorable.

These are the same number she had in 2008, and she lost then. The only candidate with overall positive numbers as Sanders.

No one gets it.

[gabrieltss]

The media, the republicans, the democrats and now Anonymous - they all don't get it. If you QUIT talking about Trump, quit showing him on the news he would become irrelevant and people would forget about him. The more people talk about him, berate him, attack him, show him all over the T.V. the more popular he gets.

If they REALLY want to get rid of Trump they need to IGNORE him! Just stop talking about him, stop putting his face all over T.V., he will just go away and people will forget about him. I mean really, it's not rocket science folks. But then again.... Maybe they all WANT hm to WIN. It could be you know....

We should be spending more of our time hammering the candidates about the problem with the H1B Visa program - like SHUTTING IT DOWN! This is what's really affecting people! Think Disney, Hertz, and all the others that are destroying American jobs for CHEAP foreign labor.