Anonymous: Don't Challenge Us NATO

Ashbringer said:
You make it sound like you want the basement dwelling idiots to just out into the streets, and start a fist fight? I know Anonymous isn't exactly the most popular group of people on the net, but they're fighting a good cause. Considering that they're doing this behind a computer, is about as peaceful a protest can get.

You'd rather people have riots like the Europeans do for soccer? BTW, these idiots were able to take down Sony's networks, as if they're IT staff were a bunch of monkeys.
Click to expand...

Seriously, what is this good cause they are allegedly fighting for? All they have caused is network outages for millions of normal folk, stolen data, etc etc. Dont tell me its part of a bigger picture and they are actually doing these people a favor. They fight for Ego. I promise you it is that simple. Biggest e-pissing contest on the internet.
 
TheWeazmeister said:
You had me until you "go out in the streets." I don't understand this mentality. If we are in the digital millennium why not do it digitally? I haven't seen them do anything profound and useful yet, but maybe they actually will? You have seen what has happened to protesters when they "go out in the streets." Why not do something on the web, where they have at least shown that they can do something? Stop wasting time on Sony is my only .02. Do something profound...Do something useful...Do something that makes a difference...That would be my only beef. If they are about freedoms and rights and blah blah blah, prove it.
Click to expand...

Open up a history book. Look at the impact of public protests in the American and French revolutions, and revolutions around the world. Same deal with the labor movement and the civil rights movement, do not underestimate the power of the people. We can make change if we go out and demand it. The problem we currently have is that we're in the era of mass media, where two or three talking heads on TV can speak over the voices of millions. This is how the protests of 2003-2004 failed. We tried, and looking back, even though the movement failed, it didn't fail nearly as bad as the Iraq War and Bush's disasterous policies. But we fought the good fight, and that's what matters.

Ironically, the Tea Party movement copied us and tried protesting a few months into 2009, and they faced the exact same problem. Their voices were drowned out by the mass media. The sad fact is that they cried about it a lot more than we did! I guess it sucks to have your same dirty tricks used against you, and now the right-wing knows exactly how it feels to be silenced and sidelined.
 
SpeedRunner said:
Open up a history book. Look at the impact of public protests in the American and French revolutions, and revolutions around the world. Same deal with the labor movement and the civil rights movement, do not underestimate the power of the people. We can make change if we go out and demand it. The problem we currently have is that we're in the era of mass media, where two or three talking heads on TV can speak over the voices of millions. This is how the protests of 2003-2004 failed. We tried, and looking back, even though the movement failed, it didn't fail nearly as bad as the Iraq War and Bush's disasterous policies. But we fought the good fight, and that's what matters.

Ironically, the Tea Party movement copied us and tried protesting a few months into 2009, and they faced the exact same problem. Their voices were drowned out by the mass media. The sad fact is that they cried about it a lot more than we did! I guess it sucks to have your same dirty tricks used against you, and now the right-wing knows exactly how it feels to be silenced and sidelined.
Click to expand...

The reason I said what I did was because of having looked at history books. We are in a changed age. When even an event that's not that far removed as the historic moments you bring up, such as the million man march occurred it was the news of the day. It was an iconic moment that people who were part of it still recall in great detail. It was the only thing that occupied the news cycle for days leading up to and past it. This is no longer the case with the age we live in. We are an a ADD/ADHD news cycle populace that can't seem to grasp snippets that are longer than a sentence, and can't be asked to think for themselves. As I said in my earlier post, we the people, are the ones that can make a difference, but suggesting to Anon that they should "go out and protest" if they have something useful to say, is just plain wrong. We are in a digital age that is usurping some of those same talking heads all over the MidEast through Twitter, facebook, texting, whatever. I am all for embracing it, I just want to see Anon do something that's actually useful for those rights, rather than what they have done so far.
 
TheWeazmeister said:
The reason I said what I did was because of having looked at history books. We are in a changed age. When even an event that's not that far removed as the historic moments you bring up, such as the million man march occurred it was the news of the day. It was an iconic moment that people who were part of it still recall in great detail. It was the only thing that occupied the news cycle for days leading up to and past it. This is no longer the case with the age we live in. We are an a ADD/ADHD news cycle populace that can't seem to grasp snippets that are longer than a sentence, and can't be asked to think for themselves. As I said in my earlier post, we the people, are the ones that can make a difference, but suggesting to Anon that they should "go out and protest" if they have something useful to say, is just plain wrong. We are in a digital age that is usurping some of those same talking heads all over the MidEast through Twitter, facebook, texting, whatever. I am all for embracing it, I just want to see Anon do something that's actually useful for those rights, rather than what they have done so far.
Click to expand...


Ok, your point is made. Fair enough, I agree.

And can we both agree that taking down my game (Heroes of Newerth) is not the best way to bring social change? :p
 
GORANKAR said:
And now, the juvenile, basement dwelling, idiots, that would never stand up to anyone, for anything when not behind a keyboard, have gone and just about insured that NATO countries try something unpleasant with the internet that us regular, honest people will surely regret. :(

Gee, thanks guys.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

do you remember HBGary the security firm? They made the announcement to expose Anonymous. What happened?
Remember lot of these guys have good jobs las programmers, IT professionals etc etc. Hbgary hack was a classic cause they used the old hacker tricks and they did it in a effective organized manner.
 
SpeedRunner said:
And can we both agree that taking down my game (Heroes of Newerth) is not the best way to bring social change? :p
Click to expand...

Abso-friggin'-lutely. If Anon is about freedom, rights, and all the other "blah blah blah" they talk about, then show me! Make us believe that you are in it for "the greater good" and not just putting green backs in your pocket and I'll listen but otherwise you (anon) are just white noise at this point.
 
4saken said:
Seriously, what is this good cause they are allegedly fighting for? All they have caused is network outages for millions of normal folk, stolen data, etc etc. Dont tell me its part of a bigger picture and they are actually doing these people a favor. They fight for Ego. I promise you it is that simple. Biggest e-pissing contest on the internet.
Click to expand...

I would like to know what the cause is too.
Not your opinion or what is interpreted, what's is anonymous mission statement?

Annoyance? Pestilence?
 
They go after the ones that try to use dirty cheap tactics that make them like they look now to you guys. Anyone can say his anonymous. Its speculation. Those who knows them and the way they go about can see if its them or someone else just using the anonymous tag.
 
Its funny how suddenly people are saying "Anonymous" is fighting for a cause,lol, as mentioned, I didnt see there mission statement as well. open mindedly, on the minds of a most people out there. "they are know for that ruckus in Sony", and for what cause, most people out there "because of a feature on the PS3 that was brought back by some guy". okay, PS3, a game. (don't bash me, Im just stating the obvious,lol) on the serious note, yeah, they are not really saying much about their attacks on NATO. just defending their side, but they could have said it more benignly,lol, alot of remarks there I think you don't need. on the plus note, comparing lulzsec and Anon, for what its worth I think I have more respect for Anon, if they are not the same :D
 
My my, Looks lie someone's got an over bloated ego :p

I guess my take on this is that I mostly agree with the stated purpose of "Anonymous" per this document. Bringing shady corporations and government figures to account for what they do is an honorable purpose.

That being said, where I have an issue is their methods. The end never justifies the means.

If we can not trust governments and corporations to do the right thing, how can we trust some anonymous headless organization?

Anonymous - while their cause (as stated above, who knows to what extent the authors represent the group as a whole) may be honorable - is more like an angry uncontrolled lynch mob completely bypassing due process considerations. Their honorable goals do not justify these methods.
 
SpeedRunner said:
Open up a history book. Look at the impact of public protests in the American and French revolutions, and revolutions around the world. Same deal with the labor movement and the civil rights movement, do not underestimate the power of the people. We can make change if we go out and demand it. The problem we currently have is that we're in the era of mass media, where two or three talking heads on TV can speak over the voices of millions. This is how the protests of 2003-2004 failed. We tried, and looking back, even though the movement failed, it didn't fail nearly as bad as the Iraq War and Bush's disasterous policies. But we fought the good fight, and that's what matters.
Click to expand...

The majority in the media where already sympathetic to the 2003-4 protests.
 
SpeedRunner said:
Open up a history book. Look at the impact of public protests in the American and French revolutions, and revolutions around the world. Same deal with the labor movement and the civil rights movement, do not underestimate the power of the people. We can make change if we go out and demand it. The problem we currently have is that we're in the era of mass media, where two or three talking heads on TV can speak over the voices of millions. This is how the protests of 2003-2004 failed. We tried, and looking back, even though the movement failed, it didn't fail nearly as bad as the Iraq War and Bush's disasterous policies. But we fought the good fight, and that's what matters.

Ironically, the Tea Party movement copied us and tried protesting a few months into 2009, and they faced the exact same problem. Their voices were drowned out by the mass media. The sad fact is that they cried about it a lot more than we did! I guess it sucks to have your same dirty tricks used against you, and now the right-wing knows exactly how it feels to be silenced and sidelined.
Click to expand...

The reason that logic is fail is that while you're right about movements succeeding for social change... * THIS ISN'T THAT*.

This is not a case where millions of people support an effort, an ideal. It's a relatively few number of people trying to accomplish something with threats and harming of average everyday people who don't deserve it.

Looking at it logically, one would say "gee the US government never leaked my data to the rest of the world... who's really the bad guy here?"
 
BlueStorm said:
The reason that logic is fail is that while you're right about movements succeeding for social change... * THIS ISN'T THAT*.

This is not a case where millions of people support an effort, an ideal. It's a relatively few number of people trying to accomplish something with threats and harming of average everyday people who don't deserve it.

Looking at it logically, one would say "gee the US government never leaked my data to the rest of the world... who's really the bad guy here?"
Click to expand...

Read posts 38 and 39 before reading post 42. Misunderstanding context FTW.

kthxbai
 
I'd be more concerned with this LulSec group than Anonymous.
 
Gott said:
I'd be more concerned with this LulSec group than Anonymous.
Click to expand...

As a corporation causing geek rage, I would be more concerned about Lulzsec. As a politician or corporate leader with something politically juicy to hide, I'd be more conserned with Anonymous.

As a private citizen I would be more concerned with the small-time unknown group or individual person looking to put a keystroke logger on my machine in order to get at my bank accounts or start a credit card in my name :p
 
All I can think of when I read "Don't challenge us, NATO" is "Don't taze me, bro!" I'm waiting for them to do something that will piss off the NSA. Then we'll see how well the headless snake stands up to getting shot with a BFG.
 
Cyraxx said:
Previous post - messed up


Once again, for all the moron's who keep calling these people script kiddies and such - they are not acting as such at all. Dur hurrrrr taking down sites hur dur. Not so much. Take a look at the link image above from Anonymous. They aren't even making threats you retards... They are simply defending themselves from the quoted accusations from NATO.

And once again "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter WHAT anonymous really is, or what its capable of. At this point, NATO has determined that they are a threat. these people don't hire lawyers or file complaints, they kick in doors and drag you off to "talk" to you. they represent national goverments that can and have killed people that threaten them. they also have all the tools of national and international law enforcement to use as needed.

3 Spanish members of Anonymous have already been arrested. wonder if these wanna be bad boys ever heard of operational security? how truly anonymous are they? guess we are gonna find out....
 
Cyraxx said:
Once again, for all the moron's who

Allow me to quote a corny hacker movie / common saying: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

anonymous.jpg
Click to expand...
anonymous.jpg

Theirs a few lines of truth in that message especially if you read the whole piece .Their interpretation that Anon has written reads a lot like some of the words in the Constitution of the USA. and how to keep the government from being taken over by the unelected. I give Anon A for effort, for having the guts to use action to back themselves up vs the whiners here who have heard of the Constitution, but have never read it completely. The Constitution tells the people they have every right and the US Constitution protects and backs up the citizens of the US to fight a corrupt or tyrannical government. "The right to bear arms" was put in place for that reason, not to go off in some foreign land, fighting for the people who didn't invite you. The battle between the people vs the Corporations is happening right in your own back yard.
 
Uncle said:
the US Constitution protects and backs up the citizens of the US to fight a corrupt or tyrannical government. "The right to bear arms" was put in place for that reason.
Click to expand...

True, but anyone who thinks they can fight off a tyrannical government with nothing to aid them but some small arms has to be delusional at best.

The first group that starts to raise arms against the government - however justified - is likely to find themselves flattened by a tank or taken out by a gunship :p

The whole concept of the second amendment serving to guarantee freedom from a tyrranical government is - at best - obsolete, but more likely was never intended in that manner at all, and was a way to guarantee that the fledgling U.S. was able to raise a militia to put down rebellions like Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts (and later, after its enactment, the Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790's), or in case the British came back.

If looked at in a historical perspective, really the second amendment was all about militia readiness and nothing else. it's even right there in the amendment....

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I know that a conservative dominated supreme court rejected that the second amendment was intended for militias, but it's funny, even though they consider themselves "originalist", the conservative contingent is actually on the revisionist side when it comes to the second amendment debate.

If you were to consult any constitutional scholar not blinded by political partisanship it is pretty clear that the second amendments original intent was to support the formation of militias used in the defense of the fledgling nation.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037379575 said:
True, but anyone who thinks they can fight off a tyrannical government with nothing to aid them but some small arms has to be delusional at best.

The first group that starts to raise arms against the government - however justified - is likely to find themselves flattened by a tank or taken out by a gunship :p

The whole concept of the second amendment serving to guarantee freedom from a tyrranical government is - at best - obsolete, but more likely was never intended in that manner at all, and was a way to guarantee that the fledgling U.S. was able to raise a militia to put down rebellions like Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts (and later, after its enactment, the Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790's), or in case the British came back.

If looked at in a historical perspective, really the second amendment was all about militia readiness and nothing else. it's even right there in the amendment....

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I know that a conservative dominated supreme court rejected that the second amendment was intended for militias, but it's funny, even though they consider themselves "originalist", the conservative contingent is actually on the revisionist side when it comes to the second amendment debate.

If you were to consult any constitutional scholar not blinded by political partisanship it is pretty clear that the second amendments original intent was to support the formation of militias used in the defense of the fledgling nation.
Click to expand...

For those interested in the original enactment of the second amendment, this writeup in the Chicago-Kent Law Review is pretty informative
 
Anon is sounding more like a typical terrorist group with every passing day.
just switch blind-folded lost sheep, tyrannical/secretive/lying governments, and immoral/greedy companies and with infidels, the all encompassing word for anything they don't like.

Both are delusional of their grand scheme for being the best for everyone.
Both aims to enlighten the people to their oppressed state.
And they shall use all means at their disposal at achieving these.

how long will Anon start selling stolen CC info and trade secrets to fund their war chest while continuously chanting "a little evil for the greater good?"

they should just direct their own efforts to create a strong political lobby for change. At the very least, it's more transparent, and so much for acting with impunity.
 
bigddybn said:
Did you seriously just compare the Jewish resistance to the Nazi regime to a bunch of script kiddies with nothing better to do that fuck with other people's shit?

Buddy you got nothin' on the sheep. At least they know what side of the fence they are on.
Click to expand...

there was no jewish resistance because there was no free jewish community. any resistance consisted of local people - germans, austrians, even french, poles etc.
 
So whose freedoms is Anonymous fighting for or protecting? What tyrannical governments are they fighting against besides Sony?
 
As I've always said, they are doing all these things only for themself. They want power, well, just like what we're seeing here. They want the power to be able to say don't mess with us or we'll screw you over. Just like the big bully in high school.

Their ego is growing, I hope they make a false move get caught soon
 
heatlesssun said:
So whose freedoms is Anonymous fighting for or protecting? What tyrannical governments are they fighting against besides Sony?
Click to expand...

"Following the arrest of three alleged 'Anonymous' members by Spanish authorities on Friday, Turkey's state-run news agency has reported that police have detained 32 individuals allegedly linked to the hacktivist group. The Anatolia news agency said today that the suspects were taken into custody after conducting raids in a dozen cities for suspected ties to Anonymous. The group recently targeted Web sites of the country's telecommunications watchdog, the prime minister's office and parliament as a protest to Turkey's plans to introduce Internet filters."
 
Cheetoz said:
"Following the arrest of three alleged 'Anonymous' members by Spanish authorities on Friday, Turkey's state-run news agency has reported that police have detained 32 individuals allegedly linked to the hacktivist group. The Anatolia news agency said today that the suspects were taken into custody after conducting raids in a dozen cities for suspected ties to Anonymous. The group recently targeted Web sites of the country's telecommunications watchdog, the prime minister's office and parliament as a protest to Turkey's plans to introduce Internet filters."
Click to expand...

Interesting. Do you have a link for that article?
 
Anon might win in the internet domain, but its only a matter of time before that changes.

What revolutionaries always lose sight of is the death they cause, its just a power shift from A to B, and anyone that stands in the way (or even on the side lines) pays for it, often with their lives. You think the Jews where the only people Germans killed? How about the Russian Revolution, or the French, English, American Civil War, Independence?

You crave power at the cost of others lives.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037379581 said:
For those interested in the original enactment of the second amendment, this writeup in the Chicago-Kent Law Review is pretty informative
Click to expand...

Thats a lot of reading and an eye opener. The part that I haven't read is how did the federal government by pass the section that they could have a standing army for only two years at a time. I'm assuming that the Feds would have to go back to congress for an extension or .......
 
cj3waker said:
nato doesnt grant anyone freedom
Click to expand...

I never said "grant" freedom. Theoretically take NATO out of the history, and we'd see a very different world right now.

Forza1 said:
If a hand feeds you freedom, you're not a free man
Click to expand...

Are you living in Iran or something? Everyone who currently lives in a free NATO country has had freedom handed to them on a silver platter at the sacrifice of someone before them.
 
Parmenides said:
I never said "grant" freedom. Theoretically take NATO out of the history, and we'd see a very different world right now.

Are you living in Iran or something? Everyone who currently lives in a free NATO country has had freedom handed to them on a silver platter at the sacrifice of someone before them.
Click to expand...

id love to see some examples of how NATO has changed the world, NATO is a majority of western european nations, that have done nothing militaristic-ally since it was founded in 1949. Any "policing actions" have been accomplished by the US, canada, and GB. While I personally think both the UN and NATO are garbage, atleast the UN has sent in its own armies (still mostly US, GB, and Canadian) but with some european troops as well
 
cj3waker said:
id love to see some examples of how NATO has changed the world, NATO is a majority of western european nations, that have done nothing militaristic-ally since it was founded in 1949. Any "policing actions" have been accomplished by the US, canada, and GB. While I personally think both the UN and NATO are garbage, atleast the UN has sent in its own armies (still mostly US, GB, and Canadian) but with some european troops as well
Click to expand...

Kosovo? If you asked the people who survived because of NATO troops showing up, you might have a different picture.
 
cj3waker said:
id love to see some examples of how NATO has changed the world, NATO is a majority of western european nations, that have done nothing militaristic-ally since it was founded in 1949. Any "policing actions" have been accomplished by the US, canada, and GB. While I personally think both the UN and NATO are garbage, atleast the UN has sent in its own armies (still mostly US, GB, and Canadian) but with some european troops as well
Click to expand...
Uhh it kept Western Europe together from breaking apart against the Soviet Union when they kept trying to undermine these countries. Without NATO, Western Europe might have been scattered and there certainly wouldn't have been a European Union or at least not the version that we see today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top