Methinks you might have missed something. [http://creativefan.com/files/2010/12/apocalypse-27-500x324.jpg]Orinon said:-snip-
Methinks you might have missed something. [http://creativefan.com/files/2010/12/apocalypse-27-500x324.jpg]Orinon said:-snip-
It did however bring a lot more attention to the Suffragist movement and I believe without the Suffragettes it may have taken EVEN LONGER for women to get the vote. Now I read it back, it's completely irrelevant to the current situation, so sorry about that. Anyway, yes. The US governments attitude to terrorists would mean it would cause more harm than good, as SOPA and PIPA already have all the attention they need. and anyway, what the hell would they target? They can't do anything off the web, and there aren't really any valid targets, unless they randomly try and hack supporters websites.orangeban said:Actually, that sort of is how it works. As a rule, governments don't give in to terrorists. If they do, that legitimises terror as a way of terrorists getting what they want.ResonanceGames said:Naw, doesn't really work like that. Congress wouldn't be scared off from not supporting a bill just because some idiot hackers came out against it, too. Just like liberal congresspeople don't vote for wars just because racist morons like David Duke and Alex Jones are against them.AC10 said:Remember this; they are regarded by the American Government as little more than cyber terrorists. Having them oppose a bill would give senators a strong reason to support the bill (the enemy of my enemy is my friends).
The example of this I have readily to hand is of the suffragettes in Britain (1911-ish) who commited terrorism (not killing, stuff like vandalism and burning post) to try and get women the vote. However, they actually turned a lot of MPs against the vote, and one of the reasons for this was because if the British government gave in to suffragette terrorism, that would make terrorism seem viable to the Irish nationalists.
How 'bout now?Orinon said:Seriously, They've occasionally been dicks and have definitely done stuff to gain the hate of many.
But These two acts are the sum of everything they hate, if they attacked Jean Simmons because went against their ideals, why aren't they attacking something that threatens to destroy the internet by massive Censorship.
Oh and here's another thing
on a different train of thought Who the hell does the US congress think its is? the internet is everywhere, like in Canada. SO they are imposing on international affairs, seriously this isn't legal.