Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Posts Pornography To Hijacked ISIS Twitter Accounts (softpedia.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader writes:
Softpedia is reporting that a member of the Anonymous collective "has been hijacking accounts for the most active ISIS supporters, the ones involved in online recruitment, and has been plastering their profiles with naked women and peaceful messages."
Anonymous is also using the hijacked accounts to monitor "protected" tweets from ISIS, and they're reporting hundreds of thousands of other ISIS profiles to Twitter.
But Anonymous is also defacing 161 of the hijacked accounts, saying they're "Adding our own images and basically showing them 'We are in control'... we are creating confusion and distrust..." There are a few things that the Islamic State fear. One is women and the second is Porn."
And probably twitter will ban it much faster if it is porn than if it were "just" ISIS propaganda.
Prude america, wake up!
The downside of this is that it's obvious that the accounts have been hacked. It's better to seed confusion whenever an account has been hacked.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
The largest shooting in US history goes unannounced on Slashdot. Gay murder is not "news that matters" to Slashdot editors.
50+ people lost their lives in a shooting and Slashdot still hasn't posted about it/ Do you hate gay people Editor David? Is that why you refuse to cover this story?
If you really hate isis.
Take *that*, Omar Mateen! Yeah, you sure showed him, didn't you?
Whatever became of their fight against the Mexican cartels? Huh? Bunch of cowards, spraying graffiti and running. Easy to go after the meaningless soft popular shit. Let's see them block the weapons sales and deliveries, then we can call them heroes. Obviously they are not. More likely they are agents of distraction.
Well they've certainly conquered *that* phobia, because they seem to be able to get close enough to commit rape on an industrial scale.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
1 maybe somebody it waiting for actual INFORMATION before doing an article??
2 how many articles are in the FireHose about this??
3 crafting a properly stylish article takes time please stand by
4 how many GEEKS were killed??
Some criticized their move since US intelligence agencies said they were using the Twitter accounts to monitor ISIS movements.
"We have also been told we are interfering with federal investigations by talking these accounts," said WauchulaGhost, being well aware of the issue.
"Maybe, maybe not. I see it this way, Daesh are going to create new accounts whether we take them or they are suspended. We are simply helping by exposing locations etc."
"Once Daesh create a new account, now we know where they are. No need for months of monitoring and wasting taxpayer’s money."
Why not just put pictures of bacon on the twitter accounts of ISIS! :-D
This used to be very popular on the Internet. You create a website or a YouTube channel as a "terrorist group" you then declare that you have hacked the website or YouTube channel. Websites that were not getting visitors used to declare that they have been hacked by blah blah blah group. It is an attempt at creating attention for themselves "attention seekers".
Very simple: Had the assault weapons ban remained in force, those 50 people would be alive. Maybe this massacre will get the US to join Venezuela and Australia to enter the civilized world and have some gun bans.
Get stuff like HR 4269 passed, and those massacres will cease on US soil. Otherwise this will become the norm.
Don't they fear bacon too?
Anonymous posting gay porn since at least the Paris Attacks. 50 people were killed in a Florida gay club. Cause and Effect people.
From what I've heard, your typical ISIS member is so deeper in porn than the Marina Trench (or whatever it is. Think it's Marina.) So they might enjoy it.
And what good did that do in Paris?
How can we tell if the pictures are really offensive if we can't see them? We need to see non-blurred images for purely scientific reasons. Yeah just for scientific reasons. That's it, that's the ticket.
Everything and anything. That's why they hide.
He said "join the civilised world".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Sabu ratted out his comrades and now Anonymous is completely infiltrated by the FBI/CIA.
Please stop saying Anonymous and use the correctly identified entity performing the porn uploads - which is FBI/CIA skiddie agents
The old anonymous would never do stupid shit like this
There would have been no difference. The assault weapon ban did not ban the firearm, it banned the firearm from looking a certain way. It was the absolute dumbest ban in the world as you could literally take the flash suppressor off the ar-15, put a wooden or composite stock on it, and it no longer would be banned.
What would have stopped this is if the type of people (gays are typically leftist) actually carrying a firearm of their own. Of course this is a "gun free zone" which means even that is something not likely to have made any difference unless someone was willing to break the law in the first place. But if only a handful of these 300 people were packing firearms illegally, or even if off duty cops (who would be legally allowed to carry as long as they weren't drinking) they could have stopped it long before it became what it was.
As it turned out, the only thing that stopped a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun. While I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, I simply cannot believe none of the gays are good guys. The only thing missing would be the gun.
Firstly, way to get your prejudices into the comment *clap clap*
Secondly -
"There was an exchange of fire with a police officer working at the club, but it is unclear whether that was inside or outside the venue." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...
So someone did have a gun, but it didn't stop it.
And finally -
Its funny how every time there is a massacre you guys come out the woodwork saying how 'if only more people had guns this wouldn't happen', yet everyone has guns and it keeps happening. Meanwhile, in the rest of the civilised world, everyone doesn't have guns and it doesn't keep happening.
I'm sure you will have an answer to this that makes sense in your own head, but honestly don't bother - to the rest of us you will just continue to come across as a moronic gun nut desperately trying to justify your need to have guns.
The fact it is a popular venue for gay people does not make it even a tiny bit more adequate for random gun owners to take action - we're talking about a dark place, with loud music and probably a lot of drunken patrons. Some survivors report they thought at first the sound was from music rather than gunfire. It's not difficult to imagine even more casualties if drunk people stop dancing and start shooting each other.
How long (or how many greased palms) before we start seeing citizens arrested under the various US computer crime laws for doing this?
The problem with posting the pornography in the first place is that it's obvious what happened and it means that the service provider is going to close the accounts. If you really want to screw with ISIS, take control of the accounts and then wage psychological warfare. Get some native Arab speakers (or some of the other languages used by ISIS) and start making posts where people question their involvement and ISIS tactics, like "my brothers, I have been in great study of the Holy Qu'ran and after much contemplation, I feel that the prophet ask me to question the motivations and methods of the caliph"... and so on. What if all the communications channels started to shift to becoming doubters and free-thinkers; what if there's back and forth where others start to express support for their brother.
It's one thing to be obviously offensive and belittle them. It's another thing entirely if the chatter slowly moves towards questioning their mission and methods.
Yeah, men with guns hate porn. This is like Teddy Roosevelt getting the brothels out of Manhattan: He soon got criticized for being too successful. Men don't hate cheap women, they hate you knowing they need cheap women. Either way, it's the cheap women being punished.
Like Venezuela?
I'll take the US, thanks.
I would post pigs, dogs, ham and wine photos.
It was the type of venue that mattered. It's a gun free zone. Gays do typically lean left politically and the left is generally anti gun. It doesn't take complex equations to figure 2+2 in this case.
But as I mentioned, it is a gun free zone by law (without any regard to the owner's desire) because it serves alcohol. I do agree that consumption of alcohol and firearms to not mix well. But designated drivers and police - on or off duty likely could have made a difference. The thing is, the amount of time involved and the direction of shooting, there would have been plenty of opportunity for someone to attempt to do something. That attempt doesn't mean they would be successful but it also means that they wouldn't have been completely defenseless and at the shooter's mercy.
The truth is, the only thing that stopped this bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun. All I'm saying is that there should be a lot more good guys around when a bad guy shows up.
Let's not create distrust by not revealing that you have hacked them but by putting in false information so that these assholes go on a wild goose chase or get themselves killed. But don't give yourself away. Geez.
There would have been no difference. The assault weapon ban did not ban the firearm, it banned the firearm from looking a certain way. It was the absolute dumbest ban in the world as you could literally take the flash suppressor off the ar-15, put a wooden or composite stock on it, and it no longer would be banned.
You can thank the gun lobby for that, they're the ones who wrote it that way. On purpose. It started off simple, as simple as laws get anyway, then got distorted.
Yay for lobbying?
What would have stopped this is if the type of people (gays are typically leftist) actually carrying a firearm of their own. Of course this is a "gun free zone" which means even that is something not likely to have made any difference unless someone was willing to break the law in the first place.
Gun free zones exist to be able to get rid of people causing problems, but before they resort to lethal violence. It's a tool to deal with the disruptive, are you really not familiar with their intended purpose?
But if only a handful of these 300 people were packing firearms illegally, or even if off duty cops (who would be legally allowed to carry as long as they weren't drinking) they could have stopped it long before it became what it was.
So now you expect a bunch of people out to party to do a good job for security?
Your expectations seem off.
As it turned out, the only thing that stopped a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun.
Not really, it was a whole squad, who may themselves have been a bit overzealous, depending on their conduct.
While I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, I simply cannot believe none of the gays are good guys. The only thing missing would be the gun.
Even the best guy is another story inside a crowded nightclub with a lot of drinking. All it takes is one slipping out of the holster to cause an issue.
Look, even if we assume that this incident would have been prevented, it's one among thousands of nightclubs, how many accidents are you prepared to risk to gain a trivial amount of prevented harm?
Shoot, you could just as easily argue that the FBI should have locked him up last year over his posts, but who would pay that price?
My prejudices? Yup. I sure do hate gun free zones.
As for the cop, it is undeniable that good guys with a gun stopped the bad guy with a gun. Just because one person was unsuccessful for whatever reason doesn't remove that fact.
As for coming out of the woodwork, I am specifically responding to someone who thinks making guns look less scary (assault weapons ban) would have somehow prevented this. Now you are completely ignoring the facts which the bad guy was only stopped by good guys with a gun. We don't need more guns, we need more good guys with guns.
On one hand I find this news amusing. On the other, I hope none of the women in the photos are identifiable, lest they become targets of violent shitbags.
That's true, is Europe you like to have your random violence at football matches, don't you.
My prejudices? Yup. I sure do hate gun free zones.
Well, that's silly of you. Why do you hate them? Don't you think there are places where you should be able to tell somebody that they shouldn't have a gun?
Or do you think they create hazards? Not really. It's a crowd of people. Crowds of people are what individuals who want to create a slaughter want.
As for the cop, it is undeniable that good guys with a gun stopped the bad guy with a gun. Just because one person was unsuccessful for whatever reason doesn't remove that fact.
Facts are slippery things, the cops could have done a terrible job of this when the final analysis comes in.
As for coming out of the woodwork, I am specifically responding to someone who thinks making guns look less scary (assault weapons ban) would have somehow prevented this.
Hmm, yeah, that you think the appearance of the firearms is relevant to anybody except a Hollywood set dresser is a sign of your prejudice. Or maybe a video game graphics designer.
Look, I get it, you've been told to mouth those words, but it doesn't make them true. The reality is that all of that bullshit? Came about because of the gun lobby, not the people who want fewer gun deaths.
Anyone else would have had simpler regulations.
Now you are completely ignoring the facts which the bad guy was only stopped by good guys with a gun. We don't need more guns, we need more good guys with guns.
Or we need less bad guys with guns, since you won't do anything about say, the guys who shot into three houses near me, thinking they were target shooting, but turns out they didn't know there were homes on the other side of the woods!
Heck, you won't do anything about any of the other failures with guns that happen, whether it be toddlers who get guns and shoot their own parents, or any number of other drunks with guns who shouldn't have had them.
Kind of ironic they're being attacked by 72 virgins.
Table-ized A.I.
Had assault weapons been banned, he would have used a knife or a bomb, or torched the place. Or, you know, used an assault rifle from black market, because you can't stop trade without stopping manufacture. I find it laughable how you think a ban would magically make a motivated criminal cease to exist. Because criminals abide by the law and never attempt to circumvent it, right?
You are a complete moron. The assault weapons ban only banned what the weapons look like and little more. It banned the sale of new magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition but all the existing high capacity mags were grandfathered in.
The exact same gun claimed to be an assault weapon in this case ( AR15) could have the stock changed and flash suppressor removed and not be considered an assault weapon even though the functioning mechanics would be identical.
As for places with no guns, your own home as long as all legal residents agree. Otherwise all it does is deprive a possible defense against an attacker who already doesn't care about the law.
As for the cops doing a lousy job, it doesn't matter, they shot the guy and he is no longer killing people. It is that simple.
"There are a few things that the Islamic State fear. One is women and the second is Porn."
Sounds like conservative Utah.....
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Yeah, I don't know how good it will do in the field, but it would be great to setup a honeypot of some sort. I kinda wonder why they don't do that already, like "to catch a predator" except for f***'ed up would-be terrorists (or perhaps they do and don't mention it much)
You are a complete moron.
I'm not the poster you are replying to. But actually no. You are mis-reading his post.
His point was that the gun legislation that passed was only toothless and pointless because of the gun lobby.
The assault weapons ban only banned what the weapons look like and little more
Because of the gun lobby.
but all the existing high capacity mags were grandfathered in.
Because of the gun lobby.
The exact same gun claimed to be an assault weapon in this case ( AR15) could have the stock changed and flash suppressor removed and not be considered an assault weapon even though the functioning mechanics would be identical.
Because of the gun lobby.
Bottom line, the gun lobby is MORE responsible for that piece of shit legislation than the anti-gun lobby. They lobbied until it was pointless, and then laughed all the way home when it passed.
As for places with no guns, your own home as long as all legal residents agree
Back in the 1880s entire towns were gun free zones.
"You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff's office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn't pick it up again until you were leaving town," -- regarding Tombstone, AZ
And drinking establishments have traditionally had rules about turning in your weapons also going back to the "wild west".
Good guy with pistol
vs
Bad guy with an AR-15 assault rifle and the element of surprise, in a crowded club.
A bystander with a gun might have been able to take him out, but not before he managed to get a few kills in. Maybe the death toll would have been ten or twenty, rather than fifty, but it wouldn't avert the shooting. Just reduce the severity. I'd expect the lives saved in the occasional shooting spree to be more than offset by the lives lost in accidents, misunderstandings and disproportionate responses.
Naked women are okay for the Muslim, "sluts will get what's coming to them".
Anonymous should be posting pictures of the most delicious bacon dishes.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
but it wouldn't avert the shooting. Just reduce the severity.
If you re optimistic, yes. Another possibility is that instead of 1 good guy with a gun being a hero and living another day, you could have 4 guys attempting to be heroes and failing, causing even more panic and more victims. It's a tough one.
When this sort of thing happens in Africa, the governments and UN work on a nation-wide disarmament. A lot of civilians would be unhappy but it would go ahead, with support from multi-national peacekeeping forces.
Where is my /. password when I need it ...
Define assault weapons for me.
As for towns in territories, it used to be constitutional and legal to literally own and whip/beat another human being. Not all laws are just. Not all laws are constitutional.
Congrats: you're as monstrous as them.
Also as dumb as a bag of hammers by advocating behavior that justifies their cause, aka running Bin Laden's playbook.
Best to stay there, if you think Paris is in Venezuela.
Muslims don't mind pornography.
Seriously, the Sept 11 hijackers went to a strip club the night before.
Slashdotters need to stop confusing muslims with Sunday school teachers.
Muslims have more in common with democrats. That's why the only Muslim in the Senate is a democrat.
Posting naked women isn't going to offend them as much as naked men....
Regardless of what they say, the fact that they take women and use them as sex slaves demonstrates that a naked woman doesn't really offend them. They might not admit that porn turns them on, but it will.
If you're trying to piss ISIS off, post stuff supporting -other- religions. Pictures of Jesus, the cross, the Star of David, the Wheel of Dharma. Post links to positive stories about other religions. Post scripture from any holy book other than the Qur'an. Hell, post Chick Tracts.
Fearing women is just as bad as objectifying them. Pornography only seeks to objectify women. Most women who are involved in the pornography industry are not there by choice and the majority are slaves in one form or another. By uplifting pornography Anonymous is treating women no different than the way ISIS treats them. Shame on Anonymous!
Define assault weapons for me
I think we both know that is pointless.
The solution to american gun violence isn't going to come from a ban on X, for some definition of X.
As for towns in territories, it used to be constitutional and legal to literally own and whip/beat another human being. Not all laws are just. Not all laws are constitutional.
And?
This doesn't happen in countries where you can't get your hands on a gun without sweating blood.
Having draconian gun laws stops lone gunman massacres cold. It does not stop terrorist massacres because they generally have access to illegal weaponry but this kind of thing would be stopped. Just looking at the frequency at which this happens in the states compared with say India should show you that US gun laws are lethal and gun control is non existent. Anyone who really wants a gun can get one.
Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/robinsaikatchatterjee
I see..
You cannot define assault weapon without falling into the exact same problem of it only describing how scary the weapon looks. But if you tried, it would be obvious to you that you were part of the gun lobby because that is the boogeyman you want to blame your misgivings on.
And the point is. . Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it was right or should be repeated. Or do you think the lie detection process of dunking someone under water to see if they are a witch should be revived? I mean it was foolproof. If they lived, they lied and was a witch and needed killing but if they died, they were telling the truth.
You cannot define assault weapon without falling into the exact same problem of it only describing how scary the weapon looks.
Not at all. I'd define it based on sustained rate-of-fire including reload, and general suitability for engaging/killing unarmored human targets at short range.
But what would that actually accomplish? A ban on firearms within those constraints would never pass. (And honestly, it shouldn't pass. At some point the guns themselves aren't the problem.)
Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it was right or should be repeated.
Obviously. Nobody disputes that.
Sometimes the past got it right.
So merely pointing out that sometimes the past got it wrong doesn't make any particular argument about gun rights. And tangents about beating people or dunking people are just irrelevant; in support of a claim nobody is disputing.
So a revolver is an assault weapon? Check out Bob Munden and Jerry Mikulec. Any gun with a magazine or clip? At what rate do you cross that threshold. For instance, oswald let off 3 aimed shots in under 8 seconds with a bolt action rifle. Aiming took up most that time too. And while not ideal, any weapon capable of killing at long range will be capable at short range. In a crowd like the night club, you don't even need to aim, just point.
You are describing about any gun other than muzzle loaders. That is why it would never pass. But suppose it did. Obviously those assault weapons exist so what is to stop them from being accessed and used. Hopefully not a war on drugs or something.
So a revolver is an assault weapon?
Maybe some are. If the average trained amateur can shoot 100 people within a few minutes span with a vanilla revolver, then yes, why wouldn't it be considered an assault weapon?
At what rate do you cross that threshold
I left it open ended. How big of a massacre will you tolerate?
For instance, oswald let off 3 aimed shots in under 8 seconds with a bolt action rifle.
Could he have have sustained that rate for 150-200 rounds though? And killed 50 people in a span of minutes? While moving around a crowded nightclub?
And while not ideal, any weapon capable of killing at long range will be capable at short range.
I stipulated it should be "suitable" not merely "capable". Long barrel high caliber with substantial recoil -- sure its absolutely capable of killing people at close range or 2 miles away, but its not terribly suitable for rushing a crowded building and killing people indiscriminately -- you won't be able to sustain the rate of fire; move while firing; nor effectively enter rooms or turn corners...etc. Its big and bulky and good luck firing two rounds in the same direction while moving... there's a reason the army doesn't use big rifles while moving through buildings...because they are entirely unsuitable for the job.
You are describing about any gun other than muzzle loaders
Not really.
But you are still proving my point about why it was pointless to try and define assault weapons in the first place.
Some dumb ass will start listing corner cases and citing what exhibition shooters are capable of. Because if a world renowned exhibition shooter acheives a rate of fire with a revolver comparable to an amateur with a semi-automatic rifle... well then I guess they are exactly the same thing. Right?
Pointless.
Obviously those assault weapons exist so what is to stop them from being accessed and used.
31% of the worlds mass shootings are in the US, 5% of the people are. Don't assault weapons exist in the rest of the world too? What stops them from being accessed and used with such frequency everywhere else?