FBI Raids Texas Company in Hunt for Anonymous

Recommended Videos

Helmutye

New member
Sep 5, 2009
161
0
0
I must say that I am rather disappointed in many of my fellow Escapists. I commented in this forum a while back, then left it, and just now came back. I've taken a look, and the number of people who are against Wikileaks and supportive of the US government's authoritarian acts, and the number who claim they don't even care at all, is very disturbing. I will respect your opinions--you certainly have a right to them. But still...

I don't want to make too many generalizations, but I always thought the Escapist was home to relatively young and young-at-heart individuals. Shouldn't we be rebellious and free-spirited and always suspicious of the Man and his latest attempts to tyrannize us? So many people seem so willing to let the government lie through its teeth and kill thousands of people so long as it doesn't interrupt our daily lives. Come on! That's the attitude of old people who no longer believe that change is possible!

People are going on and on about Wikileaks being a threat to the world, but so far there is not a single case of somebody getting hurt or killed as a result of Wikileaks. Government secrecy, on the other hand, is responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties alone. It is pretty well accepted today that the Bush administration ignored and misinterpreted an awful lot of intelligence taking the US into the Iraq war--at best, they were almost criminally negligent, and at worst they knowingly lied to start a war for no reason. The civilian death toll in Iraq is now 100,000+. This is not enemy soldiers or terrorists--that is the number of CIVILIANS that have died since the war began. Just as it was civilians who died on 9-11 in New York, it was and is civilians dying in Iraq. If leaks and whistle blowing could have prevented even half of those deaths, wouldn't that be worth bruising the egos of a few politicians?

The Iraq War Logs, leaked by Wikileaks, revealed about 15,000 new civilian deaths attributable to coalition forces that had been covered up and kept secret. That's about 5 9-11's worth of dead civilians that the US government was concealing. Yet people think Wikileaks is the greater threat? People get angry with Wikileaks? Why aren't people angry that the government did this in the first place? Talk about killing the messanger!

Also revealed: numerous shootings (and video evidence of them) where the video differs greatly from the official reports, numerous cases of US helicopters gunning down insurgents after they clearly surrendered, evidence of coalition forces turning over detainees to groups known to practice brutal torture (well beyond waterboarding, and keep in mind that the vast majority of these detainees are just normal people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, know absolutely nothing about any terrorists, and have never done anything to warrant torture), evidence of coalition forces using detainees as human bomb detectors/minesweepers, and many other horrible acts. Combine that with older incidents: Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo Bay, the Pat Tillman friendly fire cover up incident, etc, and I really have to ask: what more do you need to see?

Now, there is definitely room for disagreement on the methods of Wikileaks and Anonymous. I myself do not approve of some of the things these organizations have done. But you have to keep this disapproval in perspective--at most, Anonymous inconvenienced a few people and made the programmers at Paypal, Mastercard, and Verizon earn their money that week. Do you really think that is a big issue when THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ARE DYING AND THEIR DEATHS ARE BEING DELIBERATELY COVERED UP? As voters, it is our duty to stay informed and ensure that we elect a government that wields the power it has on loan from us in a just and responsible way. How can we do this if we do not have access to this sort of information? And of all the examples I have given above, can you name even one whose secrecy could really be justified on National Security grounds? Because that is the reason given for why such things are kept secret. It is ludicrous, and the evidence of massive misuse is heaping. It must end!

Please, fellow Escapists! Don't get distracted by fear mongering and spinning, and don't try to take refuge in apathy--these are important issues, perhaps some of the most important I have witnessed in my 28 years of life. This will affect you. Just because injustice is not directly impacting you at the moment does not mean you should turn a blind eye. As the story goes: 'first they came for the socialists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't Jewish. And when they finally came for me, there was no one left to speak up...'
 

likalaruku

New member
Nov 29, 2008
4,290
0
0
Will Hollywood try to cash in on this chase & turn it into a highly exaggerated crime drama with an unnessisary romance subplot?
 

Khada

Night Angel
Jan 8, 2009
331
0
0
Blitzwing said:
Khada said:
Housebroken Lunatic said:
Khada said:
I believe that a system that needs to hide it's on-goings from the public eye, is a seriously flawed system.
Call me extreme if you will but I'd even go as far as saying that such a system denies it's very right to exist by default.

A government might possess authority over many things but it should NEVER possess the authority to arbitrarily decide what the public should know about it's workings and affairs. And any government caught doing just that should be crushed by a rebellious angry mob of private citizens.

Instead we have this throng of scared and insecure people who are completely convinced that anything a government does is good and for their own personal benefit...
It is by no accident that this situation has come about. The government have spent years detaching people from their sense of power with its "war on terror". Anyone educated on the matter can tell you that those pointing the finger at so called "terrorist" are, by definition, exactly that. Again, Zeitgeist does a better job of explaining this and many other thing far better than i can. Be informed, go watch it :)

So what if the USA is no better than a terrorist? It doesn't change the fact they are defending themselves against actual terrorists that threaten the safety and interests of the government so if in order to protect those they must sacrifice their morals, ethics & principles then so be it.

The USA is sacrificing their morals, ethics & principles to defending the interests of the government?... Agreed.
 

Meatstorm

New member
Jan 4, 2009
239
0
0
geldonyetich said:
I pretty much called this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.249641-Anonymous-Declares-Infowar-on-Wikileaks-Opponents#9224074].

Anonymous has been pulling DOS attacks as pranks for a long time, but the point where they decided to dabble in attacking commerce sites in the name of political activism, they pretty much crossed the line into being full-fledged "cyber-terrorists" - literally, not just throwing around terrorism as a word to scare people into being right-wing.

Although the FBI isn't going to wipe out anonymous by taking down a few servers in Texas any easier than they could wipe out software piracy by taking down a few servers anywhere. Anonymous isn't just 3 guys having a good time. It's an offshoot of 4Chan, which is a significant part of today's online youth culture.
It doesn't seem like the FBI is really closing on anything that important. Two guys who have been hosting IRC don't really seem like a big catch. And i would expect Anon to react somehow to few of them being taken to justice, maybe improve the security of their datatransfer. Totally agree with you that whatever FBI accomplishes with this hunt it will not have any significant effect on anonymous.
 

Asehujiko

New member
Feb 25, 2008
2,119
0
0
hcig said:
Why do you people think "anonymous" is some unified group?
For the same reason people like to think "software pirates" are a marauding fleet of passenger liners making port every once in a while to drain some artists bank account and run off with their life's work while they're at it.

It's easier to hate a faceless mass of "over there" instead of accepting the fact that their opinion is not universal or universally correct.
 

Dys

New member
Sep 10, 2008
2,343
0
0
WilliamRLBaker said:
Ldude893 said:
So much for the anonymity of "Anonymous".

Three cheers for the FBI and their bureaucratic crusade against freedom.
YEAH! the crusade against freedom...where people in the government can just go ahead and sell secrets.
Whistle blowing you say? you mean the Person that sold the documents felt that a wrong was being commited and just had to get it out there? oh you mean that person didn't they just wanted to make a quick buck by selling the files they had copied onto a usb stick?

So many people are in support of Wikileaks yet I don't see those same people giving up all their secrets, The freedom of information is a silly idea some things in the world must be secret, I certainly as I said don't see the wikileaks folks posting all their secrets but thats the nature of people that support such causes they are all raring when it comes to other people but when their own secrets are in the open then its no longer freedom of information.
1.) Wikileaks doesn't pay for peoples secrets. That's not how whistle blowing works.

2.) Some things should be secret, I don't contest that, however it is the duty of those who hold the secret to keep it so. If I tell you a secret, and you repeat it, it's my fault for releasing the secret to an outsider. Newspapers and various news mediums around the world are constantly publishing leaked information, it has never before been their responsibility to keep it secret, and they have never before been prosecuted (except, I think, for that watergate nixon whisteblower, but that's hardly a prime example for anyone anti wikileaks to use).
 

subfield

New member
Apr 6, 2010
97
0
0
Quaade said:
I'm sorry to have to burst your bubbles here, but any law and the upholding of such is removing freedom.

- Laws against theft is taking away freedom from people who like to steal.

...
Sorry, this really jumped out at me. I see this everywhere and it seems to illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what the law is.

Laws can never "take away" anything from anyone, because we agreed - either explicitly or implicitly - to follow them (as long as we live in a democracy, or dare I say it, a republic as in the U.S.A). If you disagree with me on this, I highly recommend Du Contrat Social by Rousseau.

If I give you an orange, have you "taken away" the orange? Of course not, because I have given it to you willingly. Please don't attack the analogy, it wasn't intended to be exact, just gives the flavour of the beast.
 

fates_puppet13

New member
Dec 20, 2010
247
0
0
its a lose lose thing
the govenment will slowly reduce free will untill everyone does as they're told without exception
or anonymous are free to spout shit in my ear, torch furries, watch porn and do everything their parents tell them not to do the sad depraived 13 year old nerds
 

Housebroken Lunatic

New member
Sep 12, 2009
2,544
0
0
Khada said:
It is by no accident that this situation has come about. The government have spent years detaching people from their sense of power with its "war on terror". Anyone educated on the matter can tell you that those pointing the finger at so called "terrorist" are, by definition, exactly that. Again, Zeitgeist does a better job of explaining this and many other thing far better than i can. Be informed, go watch it :)
It's okay. Im not an american citizen myself so I've had the luxury of being able to watch the progression in the US from the OUTSIDE during my lifetime.

What's sad is that the so called "war on terror" is probably one of the most weak public fantasies that the military industrial complex has ever used in order to justify it's lucrative existence and funding. At least with the cold war and the "commie threat" you actually had a somewhat tangible threat to point your finger at and go "If we don't do this/get this much money, the russians will come for us!"

This time around they haven't even made an effort. they can åretty much point a finger at anyone and call him/her a "terrurhist!" and suddenly the american public shit bricks.

It has even gone as far that some people actually consider it reasonable that the military still conduct it's wars of aggression with the reason that "well the military employs a lot of people, which means that a lot of people will have jobs!" :O

There was a more glorious period in american history once, and that was the one where a widespread public distrust of it's own government and it's institutions existed. One could swear that the american population was beginning to wise up. But that joyous develpoment came to a crashing halt with the fall of two shiny buildings. Since then, the american public never hesitates to hand out get out of jail for free-cards to every government official who asks for one, regardless of his or her crimes...
 

Dan Murray

New member
Nov 16, 2010
3
0
0
th3j35t3r has found more then enough information on Anonymous and Co


My opinion (like my current attitude to being in the office) is sit back and enjoy the fireworks show :)
 

Kair

New member
Sep 14, 2008
674
0
0
The very same people who criticized the Soviet Union for leading a closed society are now themselves enforcing a closed society.
 

Danpascooch

Zombie Specialist
Apr 16, 2009
5,231
0
0
Azaraxzealot said:
danpascooch said:
Azaraxzealot said:
Ldude893 said:
So much for the anonymity of "Anonymous".

Three cheers for the FBI and their bureaucratic crusade against freedom.
would you rather anonymous grow out of control and get so sucked up in its own power that it will eventually take over our governments? (i really think that if one controls the internet, they can control the world)
well hell no, this should teach those little cunts a lesson.
don't
fuck
with the government.
Take over the government? Are you HIGH or something?

Anonymous has about as high a chance of taking over the government as SQUIRRELS do.

Stop being so paranoid, and people SHOULD fuck with the government when it's not doing its job (which is to represent the people, and stay WITHIN THE POWER IT IS GIVEN!)

Plus, they didn't even "fuck with the government" they fucked with Paypal.
they DDoS'd a branch of the government. i think that constitutes as an act of terrorism.
Whether they did that in the past (yes, I know they did) is not what this article is about, and not what the raid was in response to, this was about their attack on Paypal and Mastercard.

Jesus, every time someone SNEEZES it's terrorism now. Did what they do constitute a crime? Yes. Was it done in order to violently instill panic and hysteria in the greater American population? FUCK NO, it was a DDOS (see: Least effective blocking of ANYTHING).

What they did was basically poke Paypal and say "hey! Knock it off!". They didn't exactly pilot a goddamned plane into the White House!
 

Danpascooch

Zombie Specialist
Apr 16, 2009
5,231
0
0
Avatar Roku said:
danpascooch said:
Avatar Roku said:
danpascooch said:
Avatar Roku said:
Melancholy_Ocelot said:
There is little if anything illegal about WikiLeaks.

A Federally funded reactionary security force, judicially exempt from the 4th amendment and answerable to no elected official on the other hand... I digress.

A DDoS attack creates no true damage, only disruption. The same as a giant protest outside of a bank.

I can still donate to the American Nazi Party and the KKK through Pay Pal, and HAVE donated to WikiLeaks. If Fox News and CNN hosts are considered "Journalists," then by that standard what is WikiLeaks?
"Judicially exempt from the 4th amendment"...ok, I don't know a whole lot about the FBI, but I do know some about the Bill of Rights. You are aware that the 4th amendment specifically allows for exceptions (i.e, warrants) when there is probable cause, right? I'd say there definitely is probable cause here, so where is the unconstitutionality?
Ytmh said:
hcig said:
Why do you people think "anonymous" is some unified group?
This entire thread is populated by people who don't -know- what the hell an anonymous group actually means, even if it's in the goddamn name.

And yet, they all have rather well defined opinions on what whatever their interpretation of this group is. Classy.

An anonymous group, by definition, can be ANYTHING. Random people out of nowhere can bomb a hospital or do bank robberies and claim to be anonymous. There's nothing stopping this. Anyone can do anything under the name "anonymous," and that's the entire point.

Talking about "anonymous" as if it were a specific group of people is wrong. I mean, maybe 80% of this thread is anonymous "members?" Who knows? Certainly nobody will say anything that directly links them to this public image, which is obvious.
Be fair, here. It should be obvious that we're (or at least, most of us are) simply saying "Anons", in this case to refer to the specific anons behind this attack, since there is not other short way of referring to them.
Dr.Nick said:
HyenaThePirate said:
Everyone talks about the "rights of this" and the "rights of that" and how Anonymous are either villians or heroes.. but you know who the real victim is?

Paypal and Mastercard and their CUSTOMERS.

Why don't these two companies have the right to decide with WHOM they will and will not do business? Did the American government pressure them into dumping wikileaks? Possibly. But So what? Anonymous doesn't realize they are just on the other end of the stick... the government would force those companies not to aid wikileaks, but Anonymous on the other hand by their actions apparently take the stance that they WOULD force them to.

And the customers? They are the most innocent in this, because they are unable to utilize the services of these companies or develop fears about the security of their assets.

This is why they deserve EVERY BIT of what is happening to them. The FBI is in the right here, regardless of your political beliefs, because what some people are calling "freedom" is actually "anarchy", and NOBODY really wants Anarchy except 14 year old idiots who have had everything handed to them on a platter and have yet to realize that if there is no AUTHORITY, there is no one to stop OTHER people from imposing on your freedoms.

Sometimes secrets are necessary. Government secrets are necessary. Contrary to popular belief, Average Joe Public doesn't NEED to know every single little thing. Subterfuge and clandestine actions are sometimes preferable to showboating every little action.
Paypal and Visa had a choice to maintain their fair services to wikileaks or to cave in to unreasonable demands from a government that overstepped its bounds. They deserved those DDoS attacks as a reminder that we shouldn't just cave in.
"Overstepped its bounds". Not at all. There are laws in place, such as The Patriot Act, that specifically allow that. Now, we can argue the constitutionality of the Patriot Act until the heat death of the universe (and, for the record, I'm against it), but the fact remains that this law is on the books and has been for years. They're using authority they've had for quite a while.
Actual said:
HyenaThePirate said:
It's like a criminal organization and the cops.
If the cops demand that you can no longer sell guns to a group of people, and you do it, how does it make it right if that group comes and breaks your legs and burns down your store for complying with the authorities?
If we're going to do silly comparisions, this one is far more accurate:

You are a shopkeeper, the government decides that due to "terrorism" concerns they don't want you to sell to any customer who looks middle-eastern. You don't want any hassle so you just cave and tell any Asian looking folks that you won't serve them.

An anonymous group of vigilantes then padlocks your doors closed so you can't do business with anyone and they leave a note on the door that says "Don't be a douche".
Sorta, except that instead of not being allowed to sell to people who look Middle Eastern, they're not allowed to sell to one specific person who is known for being a criminal.
I'm pretty sure the bill of rights doesn't say "You have 4th amendment rights unless they have probable cause to break them" The exceptions are a LITTLE more specific that that for Christs sake! And what the government is doing does not fall under any of the exempt conditions.
Ah, well now I'm glad I couched my statement in "I don't know much about the FBI". I assumed they still needed to get a warrant, my bad.
They DO still need to get a warrant, that's the problem, nothing in the article says they got one.
...I'd think that's sort of assumed, isn't it? Can you imagine the legal shitstorm if they didn't get one? And there's literally no reason for them not to, you think they can't find a judge who agrees with them?
You'd think they would get a warrant, but in these sorts of raids the FBI often doesn't because the vague clusterfuck of policies in the Patriot Act often allows them to slip out of getting one. The funny thing is the argument is usually "THIS IS URGENT! WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO GET A WARRANT!" but in an urgent situation, they are actually allowed to get a warrant a little bit AFTER a raid, so there is literally never any reason to not get a warrant unless they KNOW they can't get one because a judge wouldn't be willing to call the raid legal.

I'm not saying what they did was illegal, but it WAS unconstitutional in my opinion, because the Patriot Act, which basically allows them to take a shit on the 4th amendment by not having to deal with a pesky judge telling them "Are you guys fucking serious? This raid isn't legal, there is no fucking way I'd ever give you a warrant for this" is a complete circumvention of the 4th amendment.
 

Danpascooch

Zombie Specialist
Apr 16, 2009
5,231
0
0
Skullkid4187 said:
danpascooch said:
Skullkid4187 said:
dogstile said:
Skullkid4187 said:
Omnific One said:
Skullkid4187 said:
Only a matter of time until those angry teens are put in jail! And anonymous will end forever!
Please tell me that was a joke or sarcasm. If not, I am kind of worried. Do you honestly think Anon is like 4 teens in their basement? No, their DDoS attacks take hundreds or thousands to pull off. 98% will never be found as they are probably working through many proxies or off unsecured wireless networks.
No, I'm not. Those 98% will be caught if it relates to a computer it can be tracked.
Libraries.

I'm not kidding. I can go to a library, plug in a memory stick, and ddos away. I will never be caught.
Libraries have security cameras and each computer data base storage has exact times of everything you do
Really? All Libraries have security cameras covering each computer? Because if they are just at the entrance, or in certain spots, they would have NO IDEA who in the library did it.

And yes, the computer knows what was done, but not necessarily WHO did it. With a bootable CD you don't need to give ANY personal information whatsoever. Combine that with gloves to avoid fingerprints and BAM! Untraceable.

It's naive to think most things cannot be traced, but it is probably more naive to think EVERYTHING can be traces.
It's also naive to underestimate the resources and technology the FBI has.
If the FBI had the technology you think they have, I would be on the no-fly list for all of the plastic knives I have as part of my extensive collection of (perfectly legal) knives.

No, not everything can be traced that easily, the USA is a pretty fucking large place, if it was that easy, everyone on the top 10 wanted would be in jail along with Anonymous.
 

RA92

New member
Jan 1, 2011
3,079
0
0
Generic Gamer said:
Helmutye said:
But what about those of us that have no reason to care?

Anyone in the UK already has a good idea of what our Government does behind the scenes, that's how our papers work and they're rather good at it. If you think about how this war is being fought and the sheer time it's been happening for then even the civilian death figures don't surprise me, our army's enemy hides in among civilians after all. The unpleasant fact is that the civilian death toll is about where anyone who knows about war would expect it to be. The only unusual thing about this war is that we are watching it as armchair generals. The death toll from the Gulf war was much higher and most of us don't know what a real war looks like anyway.

Plus Wikileaks is biased too, that video of the helicopter attack on the journalists proves it. It was neither a murder, a massacre or a slaughter. Those are words chosen for their emotive impact. The fact of the matter is that those journalists were in a warzone and were essentially sneaking up on a US convoy, but nowhere is that mentioned. Remember that both groups can lie or omit truth, there's nothing guaranteeing that Wikileaks is being honest. Be critical of both sides in a debate, don't just accept their word because they're telling you what you want to hear.

It's all very well to say that we should be more outraged but bear in mind that this isn't even remotely approaching being an American only website. Some 25% of users are British and so nothing involving the US Government bothers us directly. Since we already knew a lot of this anyway I don't see why we should be outraged.
You just stated your own problem. You're callous. You don't care. You've no concern about why these people are dying in the first place. What was it again? Bin Laden? Nuclear weapons? Spread of democracy? And stating that there is no reason to be outraged simply because some earlier war had a higher death count? What is this, a pissing contest?

As for the heli-shooting incident, have you seen the whole thing? How about the part where some civilians were coming out from a van (who were clearly unarmed, and made no attempt to collect the weapons lying around them) to help out the wounded, and got murdered for... what exactly? I don't really see much need for manipulation on WikiLeak's part to cast the coalition forces in a bad light (this goes same for the various leaks that I'm going to bring up).

As for 'we knew this already', I'm gonna quote myself. Also, I'll bring forth some basic facts about how Wikileaks conduct themselves. Trust me, they're much more discreet than people make them out to be.


Raiyan 1.0 said:
Wikileaks has blood on their hands? Funny coming from a country that is simultaneously waging wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan... did I miss something?

Anyways, there is a reason why Wikileaks hasn't released all their thousands of documents at once. News organizations given access to the documents and WikiLeaks took the greatest care to date to ensure no one would be put in danger. In statements accompanying stories about the documents, several newspapers said they voluntarily withheld information and that they cooperated with the State Department and the Obama administration to ensure nothing released could endanger lives or national security. The newspapers "established lists in common of people to protect, notably in countries ruled by dictators, controlled by criminals or at war," according to an account by Le Monde, a French newspaper that was among the five news organizations that were given access to the documents. "All the identities of people the journalists believed would be threatened were redacted," the newspaper said in what would be an unprecedented act of self censorship by journalists toward government documents.
The newspapers also communicated U.S. government concerns to WikiLeaks to ensure sensitive data didn't appear on the organization's website.


Unlike the release earlier last year of intelligence documents about the war in Afghanistan, when WikiLeaks posted on its website unredacted documents that included the names of Afghan informants, WikiLeaks agreed this time not to release more than 250,000 documents because they hadn't been vetted by the U.S. government.
The newspapers said WikiLeaks had agreed to release only the documents used in preparation for articles that appeared in the five publications, which in addition to Le Monde and The New York Times included Great Britain's Guardian, Germany's Der Spiegel and Spain's El Pais.

Most importantly, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said previously that there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks. Another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths. The official didn't want to be named because of the issue's sensitivity. So please, don't blame Wikileaks on presumptions. And none of you are possibly better than Pentagon on their damage assessment.

And what kind of information have been released? The fact that US gunmen shot down Reuter's agents while laughing about it? That the US installed an Iraqi security force that held its prisoners without charges and abused them through beatings, burnings, electrocutions and rape? Against which Bradley Manning spoke out, for which he is currently being held without charges in solitary confinement 23 hours a day? The fact that 15,000 Iraqi civilian deaths were being withheld? That the American diplomats were under orders to spy on UN officials? That the US maneuvered to stop High Court cases, with the American embassy issuing threats over the cases of Guantanamo, Couso and CIA flights? That the US pressured Germany not to prosecute CIA officers for the torture and rendition of an innocent civilian? That the US was shipping arms to Saudi Arabia for use in Northern Yemen even as it denied any role in conflict? That the UK agreed to shield American interests in Iraq probe? That Obama and GOPers worked together to kill Bush torture probe? Anonymous gets so much heat for taking down sites for a couple of hours as a form of protest, and the US government gets nothing? I guess because the people being killed are not white or something?

And hating 4chan for CP? How about this - DynCorp is a US corporation contracted by the US government to train the Afghan Police force. Reportedly 95% of its $2 billion annual revenue comes from taxpayers. Well, some of that money was flowing into a child prostitution ring. On April 11 DynCorp apparently threw a party at the Kunduz Regional Training Center where prepubescent boys were dressed in women's clothing and made to dance seductively as they were sold as sex slaves to the highest bidder.

Of course these are damning! They'll destroy your carefully constructed view of global politics based on 'Call of Duty'.

If Hunter S Thompson was alive today, he'd fork your eyes out - eyes that you've decided to put out of use.

The UK has been a major component of the America's invasions, and saying that they had no part is ignorant. And not caring about the fact that even in one of the worst economic recessions your government refuses to stop spending billions on a losing war is just ridiculous. And if the confirmation of the fact that the UK government has been meddling with investigations on war crimes to protect American interests don't bother you the least as a British citizen, passing it off as 'we knew it already'... well, I guess my whole rebuttal was pointless, and the meaning of transparency and democracy has been lost to you.
 

Brian Hendershot

New member
Mar 3, 2010
784
0
0
Khada said:
Brian Hendershot said:
Khada said:
Brian Hendershot said:
I don't support Anonymous or what they did. I also don't support WikiLeaks. I am all in favor for the government telling us the truth and keeping us informed, but some things are meant to be a secret for our safety.

Everyone knows Russia is basically run by Vladmir Putin though. Don't know why people are still surprised by that.
What kind of person chooses ignorance?... Oh right, the ignorant.
I knew someone would comment to that effect.

Look I am not saying EVERYTHING should be kept a secret. I am all in favor of the government telling us what they are doing so we can make informed decisions. HOWEVER, ( and keep in mind, I do not think that our government is perfect in any way. I think we need a system reboot. However, it is the best we have right now) the government keeps certain issues from us for a reason. WikiLeaks crossed the line when it revealed that many Arab world capitals called for the United States to do what it must to rid the world of the fear of the Iranian regime headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I shouldn't have to explain that last bit, but I will if I have too. It's a pretty simple connect the dots scenario.

This isn?t like the Pentagon Papers, or even Afghanistan and Iraq documents that WikiLeaks poured out earlier this year, which helped to expose or, in most cases, confirm what we already knew about very badly conceived and executed wars. This would appear to be a direct assault on the whole idea of confidential diplomatic correspondence. And that?s not just a bad idea, it?s a stupid one.?
I understand and respect your opinion, I do however disagree. I believe that a system that needs to hide it's on-goings from the public eye, is a seriously flawed system. I actually believe that the entire political system should be a dead practice. If you watch Zeitgeist + Zeitgeist Addendum, you'll get an idea of where my beliefs lye. If fact, if you haven't seen Zeitgeist I suggest you get your ass over to YouTube and watch it. :)

Also, I though my original quip was quite witty xD
No yes, you should get a cookie for your witty quip.

I also understand and respect your opinion. Hell, I agree with it to some extent. Our current system is flawed, corrupt and probably not going to be around much longer (hopefully). It was great system of government for 13 loosely associated colonies in the 1700s, but now, not so much.

And while I do think a system reboot is needed (I am a bit of a mini-anarchist), WikiLeaks didn't really do anything except (a) tell us what we already knew or (b) potentially endanger American Lives (Though admittedly, "knocking off half the world's population would do wonders for the economy and environment").

It's kinda off topic, but the Republicans new policy to block everything the democrats try to pass, just seems childish to me. Such is error of our political system, those not in power call the others unconstitutional and to challenge the constitution is to challenge God(s) him(them)self.
 

Spawn_Of_Kyuss

New member
Mar 11, 2009
92
0
0
People, please. Basic facts straight time.
"New Scientist" #2791 issued on the 18th of December puts it best.


(Anonymous)... is not a typical protest group with leaders or an organisational structure, but more of a label that activists apply to themselves. Anonymous has strong ties to 4chan.org... ...The posts of unidentified users are listed as "Anonymous", leading to the idea of a collective anonymous campaigning force.

In short, Anonymous covers pretty much the whole spectrum of human nature because it isn't so much a group as a collective opinion. Think of it as a nation where you can opt in and out of citizenship on a whim. Some are massive cunts, yes, and some are just regular cunts like you and me who watched Fight Club too many times. Some have the technical know how to hack large corporations, yes, and some just download LOIC and make another fucking demotivational poster.

This LOIC program involved in DDoS attacks doesn't make any effort to mask the user's IP, so what's newsworthy is not that they've been traced, but rather that the FBI now seems to work for any commercial enterprise deemed rich enough. DDoSing isn't illegal but rather an exploitation of an entirely legal tool, so I have no idea what leg they'll claim to stand on when the shit hits the proverbial fan.