Anonymous' Target Planned to "Take Down" WikiLeaks

[Starke]

Prison is scary

You're assuming I live in America. If I was arrested in my country, it is more likely to cause attention. These personal life speculations are tedious and irrelevant. Can we please stick to the topic here?

Your profile seems to think you are.

 

[AnonOperations]

I'm trying my best not to reveal too much about myself here, ok. I do have a healthy respect for the law. But yes, that is what my profile says.

 

[Hansinkdu]

Anonymous and Akumetsu [http://www.mangafox.com/manga/akumetsu/?no_warning=1]...

They both combat what they consider evil.
Compare them. How similar? How different?

Which would you prefer?

 

[HyenaThePirate]

I also agree that it can be a major problem using the anonymous name. A large majority are still unaware of the difference between AnonOps and the chan messageboards.

I apologize If I seem to be dismissing any responsibility of negative effects AnonOps actions may have incurred. I do realize the negative effects from the actions taken. And I do see how some of the people supporting us are young and immature. Some of the actions taken and things talked about in IRC makes me *facepalm*. Even when the CEO of HBGary came into IRC to negotiate, some of the OPs did not behave professionally. That said, it is a hell of a lot better then /b/.

I believe anonymous went too far in some ways relating to the HBGary incident. And they could have worded some press releases better and been more careful in the other ways they tried to help. AnonOps is still learning here, and we are fully open to ideas and suggestions on other ways to help.

I think at long last, you and I are coming to an understanding.

See, I do on some level admire what Anonymous and wikileaks are TRYING to do (in theory). It's just the implementation and worse, the ATTITUDE of their members and supporters that rubs me the wrong way.

See, while I'm all for "freedom" and tackling corruption when possible, I also understand that not EVERY evil can be confronted or in some cases even NEEDS to be. Because I don't think you can just assume that ALL "freedom" is GOOD freedom. As much as it sounds like I'm advocating it, sometimes secrets are not only acceptable, but NECESSARY. Just because Anonymous or some members of Wikileaks believes that there should be total transparency in all things Government doesn't make it so. Hell, even on a personal level, we ALL have secrets that no matter what you might claim you would rather take to your grave than reveal. And no matter how much you or I might think that such a secret should be made open to all, people, companies, and even governments have the right (and in some cases, a duty) to KEEP those secrets. I think it has to be weighed versus how dangerous that secret IS. Proof that The Bush administration orchestrated 9/11 directly? Sure that's probably something that needs to be revealed. Proof that one of Bush's daughters had an abortion? That's no one's business. (Both of those scenarios are examples, not to be taken as fact). But from what I've observed, there is a question about what Wikileaks thinks should be made public knowledge and not. Also worrisome is that I don't fully believe the folks at wikileaks to be an entirely professional lot, doing their due diligence in parsing that information. They may be dedicated to the CAUSE, but they aren't dedicated to the WORK enough to carefully consider what they release. Otherwise, a much more careful organization would have taken the time to go through the documents they released and only put out the most pertinent stuff, rather than just big fat dumps of thousands upon thousands of documents that I can all but assure you were not even glanced at, let alone scanned for sensitive information.

That above all else is going to be Anonymous and Wikileaks greatest problem going forward. They have a heavy responsibility that I do not think they truly fathom. If they are going to remain relevant without being systematically taken apart by the Governments of the world that view them as a threat, they are going to have to start being much more efficient and careful about WHAT kind of information they release, how much of it, and why.

They are going to also have to do something about the rogue elements within their ranks. Someone earlier mentioned the concern about being infiltrated by the FBI or some other agency, but the sad fact is, they probably already have, considering the rather "open" nature of their loose affiliations. Since every member of Anonymous is.. pardon the pun.. "anonymous", how hard would it be really for someone to show up and "join the cause" undercover? Anonymous would be very, very wise to not underestimate the power, resources, and abilities of the American government, or hell, the Iranian Government for that matter. Otherwise, their own arrogance might bring about their own downfall. Anonymous has been around a few decades, but these Government agencies have been playing these little spy games for centuries, and I'd wager they are MUCH better at it than you are.

 

[AnonOperations]

Yes, I think we are HyenaThePirate. You have raised some good points in your post here. I am still bracing myself for the possible backlash from the HBGary incident. The anonops servers have already been attacked yet again. AnonOps is aware of Government infiltration to our public channels and has taken up measures to further secure the people.

I'm reminded of this quote:

I want them to feel secure, I want them to feel confident. Confidence breeds distraction, and that is when one is most venerable.

I was chatting with a crowdleaks reporter today. They informed me that there should be more attention brought to this:

HBGary INC. working on secret rootkit project. Codename: MAGENTA
http://crowdleaks.org/hbgary-inc-working-on-secret-rootkit-project-codename-magenta/

Wikipedia: A rootkit is software that enables continued privileged access to a computer while actively hiding its presence from administrators by subverting standard operating system functionality or other applications.

They were making rootkits for another government contractor, God knows why.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

No you don?t. The governments duty is to maintain order and protected the interests of the country they represent and if they must resort to underhanded methods in order to achieve that then so be it.

You DO realize how easy it is to twist the words "protect the interests of the country", right?

It could go all the way down to stuff like "Oh, look, an election is coming. But WE are the only good party, in our opinion, so let's rig the election because it's in the better interests of the country!" or "The people are becoming hard to control, and we are getting overpopulated. How about we make a virus that we can control, and spread it around to keep people obedient out of fear, and get rid of some excess people! Oh, and we'll blame the virus on anyone who opposes us! It preserves order and is for the better interests!"

I realize those examples are ridiculous, but could still be justified by "keeping the best interests of the country in mind". They SHOULD keep the interests of the country in mind, but they need to be legal and fair about it. Otherwise they're more like a mafia then a government.

 

[Danpascooch]

They're human, how could they not understand the difference between being executed for saying something the government doesn't like, and being allowed to say things the government doesn't like?

Who's being executed? The American hikers? Because they aren't being arrested over freedom of speech. The Iranian people? Because that isn't what's happening there either.

You can have a cookie for completely missing the point on that whole post though. Congrats, that takes true dedication.

That's hardly fair, judge him on what he says and does, not from your preconceived notions of the group (hardly even a group really) that he comes from

Even what he's saying is incoherent and inconsistent, combining it with reality completely tanks his credibility into the range of a little kid spouting off "let's say that..." repeatedly to change the rules with no regard to what came before.

I see you just said his posts are incoherent and inconsistent, good, see, THAT is a valid reason to disapprove of him. I was just saying your earlier post saying "what's more likely, that an Anon member knows what he's talking about or an Anon member that makes shit up" wasn't exactly fair. It's fine to hate that guy, just make sure you do it for the right reasons is all I meant.

I don't "hate" him he is getting on my nerves, but that's different. As a personal position, I don't have a problem espousing an idea I don't agree with. And I enjoy a good spirited debate. The catch is when someone isn't thinking, and instead are simply responding in rote. Now, from what The-artist-formerly-known-as-H2whatever is posting, he really does seem to be falling more into the not thinking, and vomiting up whatever comes from the releases of the hive mind. Some of this would make sense, but most of it is simply badly written over wrought attempts at sounding high minded. I've read far too much legitimate political philosophy over the years to fall for that, and I can recognize ill-conceived attempts at it almost instantly (or ill-conceived genuine examples).

So where all this is going is, from what AnonOps is writing, he doesn't appear to have really digested (or thought about) the information he is relaying. It is at best schizophrenic, and at worst incoherent, regardless it is self-contradicting.

Now, pushing him to think about what he's saying has so far failed, but I don't hate him, he's just on my nerves at the moment.

Are you saying the Iranian people aren't being arrested over free speech? I point you to the Blasphemy Law in Iran. Google it if you don't know what it is, basically you can be imprisoned or worse for criticizing the Quran.

Frankly your hostility toward me is uncalled for, I have never been hostile toward you, and I just provided a clear example of the people of Iran being denied the right to free speech.

If you don't think that right is worth fighting for that's fine, but don't act like they already have free speech.

It isn't that Iran's free speech is unlimited. And it isn't that free speech isn't worth fighting for. It's the methods.

Okay, Richard Weaver was a political philosopher in the mid 20th century. In Ideas Have Consequences he argues that the height of man was the southern aristocrat. He's arguing that this man of leisure was the best suited individual to deal with the world.

Now, when I read this my immediate response is that the man is insane, he wants to revert to a kind of Platonic society that preys upon slave labor, while promoting an individual who has no particular or specific skill set, but rather a holistic view of the world. Reading this is (or at least for me was), quite frankly disgusting. Until you realize that the context of what he is using as an example distracts you from the underlying philosophy.

The philosophy is that by specialization of skills we lose the capacity to make great leaders. But the example it's couched in conceals this under 150 years of American history.

The same thing is true with Iran. Iran needs free speech, more than they have at any rate. But what Iran does not need is a group of westerners arguing for free speech, calling their government illegal, while pointing at a government that was backed by the United States and was far more oppressive than their own.

Like my reading of Weaver, the Iranians lose the actual philosophy behind historical context.

In Iranian historical context, the United States backed the Shah's oppressive regime, which was far more harsh it it's suppression of dissent while using rhetoric almost identical to what Anon is now using. To ask them to filter through that is a waste of time. It won't happen. Because, to an Iranian citizen, Anon's message isn't recognized as a call for free speech. It is recognized as a call to colonial enslavement.

So again, Anon may have noble goals, but the don't have the slightest fucking clue what they're actually doing. And in the end can at best achieve nothing, and at worst piss them off more and get the remaining hikers killed as spies.

That is something I cannot support.

I do believe you're the one who just a few posts ago accused him of changing his argument.

You just switched from "Free speech violations are not happening in Iran" to "Free speech violations are happening, but this isn't the way to fix them"

Just thought I'd point that out.

Honestly, I don't care where the support comes from, if it's for the purpose of stopping people from being imprisoned or killed for their opinions, I don't ever think it's a bad thing to lend support.

 

[ChaosReaver]

Anonymous is a "hero"?! Nobody's a fuckin' hero here! It's just everyone being dicks to a different degree! The banks and corporations are dicks by default, Julian is a dick for giving the hornet's nest a good old hefty kick and making the US look worse than it already does, and Anonymous is being a dick just because they don't like anyone trying to get back at Julian for being a dick! It's just a gigantic dickfest! Dicks! Dicks everywhere!

^this. I never liked Anon, and I never will. They're being the smallest dick in this equation, but at the end of the day they aren't the heroes. With that being said, while I don't support them in this, I'm not entirely against them either.

 

[waffle911]

Having read through the entire thread thoroughly, I feel I have garnered enough information to form a solid opinion of my own about the situation (I personally see them as something of a chaotic neutral, an anti-hero if you will, that while not inherently a villain is still coming to terms with the extent of its power and how best to utilize it; this of course is dependent on which sub-grouping of 'Anonymous' is in question as the whole cannot be held entirely accountable for the actions of a few miscreants that nevertheless will inevitably be attributed to the whole). Something else that has arisen from this is how I understand Anonymous to operate, which I find has been questioned time and again as to how they could be trusted to police themselves? A spot on PBS sums up perfectly my understanding of how Anonymous determines its targets and how its own system of checks and balances limits the effectiveness of its power against those targets that are deemed unworthy due to proponents failing to provide enough of a compelling argument for its disruption. It is not a core group of people, it is one person proposing an idea and a case for it (this can be anybody, not just one of the "elite" who contribute their talents to the actual design of such attacks). If the idea gains popularity, it becomes a mass vote for or against. If enough vote for it, the attack can go ahead, but anybody not in favor of the attack need not have their equipment participate in the attack, limiting its effectiveness. As I understand it, and given the circumstances of Anonymous' existence and M.O., such decisions are usually well-informed and carefully deliberated before being vote upon; unfortunately, such high standards cannot be said for the democratic process as it exists within the U.S., for example. Because of the anonymity, ideas are not judged on the basis of who contributed them; complete anonymity encourages people to speak freely and without reservation, which while it can lead to disruptive behaviour born out of the absence of consequence, can also make way for the creation of novel ideas that can be evaluated on a level field on their own merits without having to pander to artificially created 'sides', all without the incentive for an individual to take credit for or otherwise gain from such decisions personally.

If action is taken, it is taken by those who find that a proposal has sufficient merit to further the goals of freedom of speech for all.

In the case of attacking PayPal, Amazon, Visa, MasterCard, etc., they were fighting against the effective revocation of free speech resulting from said companies barring support of the very infrastructure of WikiLeaks, and all without inhibiting the actual core web-service functions of the aforementioned companies (i.e. financial transactions).

TL;DR I saw <a href=http://youtu.be/5-SmC7fH78M>this video and thought it made for good insight into Anonymous and a compelling enough case for the way it operates.

 

[Dan Stillman]

I hope they do something similar to what they did to Gene Simmons website :3

 

[Starke]

I do believe you're the one who just a few posts ago accused him of changing his argument.

You just switched from "Free speech violations are not happening in Iran" to "Free speech violations are happening, but this isn't the way to fix them"

Just thought I'd point that out.

Honestly, I don't care where the support comes from, if it's for the purpose of stopping people from being imprisoned or killed for their opinions, I don't ever think it's a bad thing to lend support.

Not exactly, I accused him of picking his arguments (and logic) randomly in whatever way benefited him the most at that moment.

On the free speech side of things, it goes something like this: I didn't say there was complete freedom of speech, I said they weren't being executed for it. The Blasphemy laws carry jail time, but they aren't capital crimes.

Now, if you're looking for ways that what you say can get you killed, treason has never been protected by free speech, and Iran and the United States agree that this is a crime they want to be able to execute people over. But, I'm not aware of a huge wave of executions in Iran based on that.

Flat out, people are being imprisoned, they aren't being systematically executed, and I guarantee the people in question can tell the difference between a thirty month jail sentence and a noose.

EDIT: Unless you know of some case where I said that wasn't any free speech issue there, in which case, fucking quote it so I can tell you how sick and or hungover I was when I typed it.

 

[Danpascooch]

I do believe you're the one who just a few posts ago accused him of changing his argument.

You just switched from "Free speech violations are not happening in Iran" to "Free speech violations are happening, but this isn't the way to fix them"

Just thought I'd point that out.

Honestly, I don't care where the support comes from, if it's for the purpose of stopping people from being imprisoned or killed for their opinions, I don't ever think it's a bad thing to lend support.

Not exactly, I accused him of picking his arguments (and logic) randomly in whatever way benefited him the most at that moment.

On the free speech side of things, it goes something like this: I didn't say there was complete freedom of speech, I said they weren't being executed for it. The Blasphemy laws carry jail time, but they aren't capital crimes.

Now, if you're looking for ways that what you say can get you killed, treason has never been protected by free speech, and Iran and the United States agree that this is a crime they want to be able to execute people over. But, I'm not aware of a huge wave of executions in Iran based on that.

Flat out, people are being imprisoned, they aren't being systematically executed, and I guarantee the people in question can tell the difference between a thirty month jail sentence and a noose.

EDIT: Unless you know of some case where I said that wasn't any free speech issue there, in which case, fucking quote it so I can tell you how sick and or hungover I was when I typed it.

Iran?s execution binge
Posted on 2011/02/04 by Walt

Source: National Post

Irwin Cotler, Special to the National Post

While the eyes of the world are understandably turned toward North Africa, Iranian executions have escalated dramatically. Human rights organizations report that in January 2011 alone, Iran has executed at least 65 people, while another 43 executions took place in the 10 days before the new year. This is a rate of about one person every eight hours, an unprecedented ?execution binge? even by wanton Iranian standards. It has gone largely unnoticed.

This past weekend, The Netherlands froze its ties with Iran to protest the hanging of a Dutch-Iranian woman, Zahara Bahrami. She had been executed on trumped-up drug charges, but her real ?crime? had been to protest the fraudulent June 2009 election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Her execution came just after the hanging of two other post-election demonstrators in Tehran?s notorious Evin prison, and the sentencing of seven other protesters to death.

Iran is engaged in a wholesale assault on the rights of its own people, including a state-orchestrated wave of arrests, detentions, beatings, torture, kidnappings, disappearances and executions. Initially, all of this was overlaid with Stalinist show trials and coerced confessions; but now, even that pretense has been discarded.

That article is less than two weeks old (https://americankafir.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/irans-execution-binge/)

I hope that's satisfactory, but if you want me to, I can provide multiple other sources to collaborate this article. They ARE being executed for speech.

I don't know what to tell you, you're just wrong about this, sorry.

 

[AnonOperations]

Well said waffle911. A good interview [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-SmC7fH78M] that you posted regarding anonymous also.

It is disturbing to see the DOJ involvement in this.

DOJ tells BOA to avoid speaking directly to security firms, just bring lawyers into the room and "say things to the lawyer" (letting the other side overhear) so everything is protected by lawyer/client confidentiality and can never be used as evidence against them.

The whole situation is appalling but hardly surprising. And as Greenwald notes, much of it is illegal. But don?t expect anyone to be charged with those crimes any time soon. It was the DOJ that recommended HB Gary to Bank of America. And their actions fit the DOJ?s agenda to destroy WikiLeaks. The DOJ will conveniently look the other way.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/02/bank_of_america_and_glenn_gree.php

HBGary CEO Also Suggested Tracking, Intimidating WikiLeaks? Donors [http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/02/14/hbgary-ceo-also-suggested-tracking-intimidating-wikileaks-donors/]

A quick search of the company?s WikiLeaks-related conversations shows that Aaron Barr, the HBGary chief executive who first caught the attention of Anonymous by boasting that he?d penetrated the group and identified its leaders, also suggested other tactics against WikiLeaks that weren?t included in that PowerPoint: namely, tracking and intimidating anyone who had given money to WikiLeaks. The security firms ?need to get people to understand that if they support the organization we will come after them,? he wrote in an email. ?Transaction records are easily identifiable.?

More on the BofA/WikiLeaks/HBGary/Greenwald story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExL4KQ3noOI

TLDR version.

- Julian Assange said he'd take down a major bank.

- Bank of America says "Oh $#@!, he means us. They found our crimes."

- BOA asks Department of Justice "Can we destroy Wikileaks?"

- DOJ says "Oh good, we hoped someone would offer. Here's the phone numbers for some private security firms that are good at doing dirty work very quietly."

- DOJ tells BOA to avoid speaking directly to security firms, just bring lawyers into the room and "say things to the lawyer" (letting the other side overhear) so everything is protected by lawyer/client confidentiality and can never be used as evidence against them.

- Security experts DOS attack Wikileaks and falsify evidence to blame convenient patsies.

- Fake evidence isn't even needed because DOJ doesn't give a rat's ass who attacked Wikileaks.

- Security experts make lists of Wikileaks supporters and sympathetic journalists who need to be "dealt with" slowly in various ways that don't suggest a pattern.

- Security expert attempts to identify Anonymous to destroy them as Wikileaks supporters because of their DOS attacks against the credit card companies, so they hack his Twitter account and dump his emails, which contain evidence of the above conspiracy.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Well said waffle911. A good interview [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-SmC7fH78M] that you posted regarding anonymous also.

It is disturbing to see the DOJ involvement in this.

DOJ tells BOA to avoid speaking directly to security firms, just bring lawyers into the room and "say things to the lawyer" (letting the other side overhear) so everything is protected by lawyer/client confidentiality and can never be used as evidence against them.

The whole situation is appalling but hardly surprising. And as Greenwald notes, much of it is illegal. But don?t expect anyone to be charged with those crimes any time soon. It was the DOJ that recommended HB Gary to Bank of America. And their actions fit the DOJ?s agenda to destroy WikiLeaks. The DOJ will conveniently look the other way.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/02/bank_of_america_and_glenn_gree.php

HBGary CEO Also Suggested Tracking, Intimidating WikiLeaks? Donors [http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/02/14/hbgary-ceo-also-suggested-tracking-intimidating-wikileaks-donors/]

A quick search of the company?s WikiLeaks-related conversations shows that Aaron Barr, the HBGary chief executive who first caught the attention of Anonymous by boasting that he?d penetrated the group and identified its leaders, also suggested other tactics against WikiLeaks that weren?t included in that PowerPoint: namely, tracking and intimidating anyone who had given money to WikiLeaks. The security firms ?need to get people to understand that if they support the organization we will come after them,? he wrote in an email. ?Transaction records are easily identifiable.?

More on the BofA/WikiLeaks/HBGary/Greenwald story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExL4KQ3noOI

TLDR version.

- Julian Assange said he'd take down a major bank.

- Bank of America says "Oh $#@!, he means us. They found our crimes."

- BOA asks Department of Justice "Can we destroy Wikileaks?"

- DOJ says "Oh good, we hoped someone would offer. Here's the phone numbers for some private security firms that are good at doing dirty work very quietly."

- DOJ tells BOA to avoid speaking directly to security firms, just bring lawyers into the room and "say things to the lawyer" (letting the other side overhear) so everything is protected by lawyer/client confidentiality and can never be used as evidence against them.

- Security experts DOS attack Wikileaks and falsify evidence to blame convenient patsies.

- Fake evidence isn't even needed because DOJ doesn't give a rat's ass who attacked Wikileaks.

- Security experts make lists of Wikileaks supporters and sympathetic journalists who need to be "dealt with" slowly in various ways that don't suggest a pattern.

- Security expert attempts to identify Anonymous to destroy them as Wikileaks supporters because of their DOS attacks against the credit card companies, so they hack his Twitter account and dump his emails, which contain evidence of the above conspiracy.

Wikileaks made itself a threat to the people who hold the reigns of power in the most powerful nation on the planet. They've declared themselves a willing nuisance to the operations of the world's most powerful corporations.

So tell me... why does ANY of this shock you? Why are you suddenly concerned about the DOJ's involvement, or distressed by the actions of BOA and HBGary? Did you think the government and corporations would sit around and allow themselves to be exposed, slapped, and villified publicly without putting up some kind of resistance?

Thats the vibe I've been feeling from what I've been seeing in the forums lately. That Anonymous and Wikileaks and their supporters are almost shocked or mortified that at the audacity of institutions like BOA making plans to fight back or running to security agencies in order to respond to Anon/Wikileak's actions. I mean what did you expect? For these organizations to all of a sudden stop doing what they've been doing for decades and start doing business in some ideal utopian dream world where everyone is open and honest and completely sincere?
Never. Going. To. Happen.

Instead, what is going to happen is companies like BOA and the American Government are going to make INCREASING security a priority, put pressure on politicians to LIMIT the internet activities of regular people, take extra precautions to secure their secrets (probably by restricting what gets put onto a hard copy) and sinking billions of dollars into new plans to eradicate the threat.

Sadly, money talks in the real world... I don't see Anon or Wikileaks coming out on top in the long run. Because not everyone wants what they are offering.
As Trent Reznor once said, sometimes there really is "Happiness in slavery."

 

[AnonOperations]

None of this shocks me, It is all to be expected. I wouldn't be surprised if wikileaks members were assassination either.

 

[Dupeo]

Anonymous represents my interests more than any politician. How can I support them?

 

[AnonOperations]

Anonymous represents my interests more than any politician. How can I support them?

You can show your support by participating in their operations. e.g. OperationCablewiki and Leakspin - summarizing and spreading cables. Search #cablegate on twitter and check here for the latest leaks: http://cablewiki.net/index.php?title=Main_Page

Watch This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFLaBRk9wY0

All the other operations have channels and instructions on IRC:
Servers: irc.anonops.in or irc.anonops.ru Port: 6667
WebChat: http://www.anonops.ru:9090/?nick=WebAnon....&channels=opiran&prompt=1

For an Anonymous how to (This is a great security guide): http://www.mediafire.com/?fb809v468t381e5

Follow AnonOps on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/#!/anonops

Keep up to date with Anon News:
http://www.anonnews.org/
http://anonops.blogspot.com/
http://anonops.tk/
http://anonops.tumblr.com/

Anonymous manifesto: http://truthisrevolutionary.org/news/message-anonymous

For a recent explanation on Anonymity and who we are:
http://i.imgur.com/6OeQa.jpg, http://i.imgur.com/ul7Sm.jpg, http://i.imgur.com/Qq3bn.jpg

 

[Starke]

That article is less than two weeks old (https://americankafir.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/irans-execution-binge/)

I hope that's satisfactory, but if you want me to, I can provide multiple other sources to collaborate this article. They ARE being executed for speech.

I don't know what to tell you, you're just wrong about this, sorry.

First I've heard of it, so on that you have my apologies. Part of the reason for that is because I've been paying a lot less attention to world events since December.

It doesn't make Anon's methods any better tailored to the situation however, but at least you have demonstrated a compelling interest for some kind of action.

 

[Danpascooch]

That article is less than two weeks old (https://americankafir.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/irans-execution-binge/)

I hope that's satisfactory, but if you want me to, I can provide multiple other sources to collaborate this article. They ARE being executed for speech.

I don't know what to tell you, you're just wrong about this, sorry.

First I've heard of it, so on that you have my apologies. Part of the reason for that is because I've been paying a lot less attention to world events since December.

It doesn't make Anon's methods any better tailored to the situation however, but at least you have demonstrated a compelling interest for some kind of action.

That's a very mature reaction thank you. There's nothing wrong with hating Anon's methods, that's a matter of opinion.

To be honest I actually had to look that up just to present to you, and much of my earlier arguments were based on assumption, so in a very real way we were equally ignorant. As someone who gets most (if not all) of my IRL news from Colbert and the Daily Show (people scoff at that, but hell, it's SO much more reliable than Fox News it's not even funny) I can relate to being behind on this stuff, I literally get no news on the weekends, I didn't even know about that Arizona shooting until like 3 days later.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Anonymous' Target Planned to "Take Down" WikiLeaks

snip
HBGary also released a statement this week which seemed to suggest that the information Anonymous posted was faked. "Please be aware that any information currently in the public domain is not reliable because the perpetrators of this offense, or people working closely with them, have intentionally falsified certain data," the statement read.

Besides the fact that forging 60,000 emails as well as PDFs, Word docs, and presentations is ridiculous, it is not Anonoymous' modus operandi to think the way these mooks do. I don't know about you, but claiming that the information is false is disingenuous. It's clearly a deliberate attempt to discredit Anonymous that's worthy of the way these guys think, say, like proposing to do the same thing with a liberal reporter.

snip

Is that not what so right wing nuts did by falsifying emails making global warming look like a hoax?

(read neutral voice) I would not put anything past terrorists. and that is what Anonymous is terrorists. They support a man who critically weakened the US's ability to negotiate by releasing our negotiating strategies. They caused Millions (if not Billions) of dollars in damage to companies for Following the law.

These people claim freedom but only for their point of view. They are dangerous to all free nations because they attack anyone that disagrees with them. If this evidence was real then take it to the media or the authorities wait they can not because they broke the law to get this info. If I hacked into the Escapist's website (which I will not because it is illegal and I try not to break the laws) and stole everyones bank numbers. Noone would support me, even if I used the money to fund Anonymous. Why? Because I just stole your money. Anonymous is nothing more than thugs going after (maybe not innocent but not illegal) organizations and then crying foul that a bank tried to go after them.

You sadden me, sir.