Anonymous to target foxnews.com today at 5pm est

reply to post by Blaine91555


Can you point me to some references on peaceful revolutions? please..

This line is about foxnews and bill ohreally?

...weird in all my years i have never used a firewall and never been hacked or attempted hacks perpetrated against me . You must be a lul magnet..

["An unjust law is no law at all", said St Augustine, providing the foundation of civil disobedience movements across the globe. If a law is not really a law at all, it is argued, one has a right -- even a duty -- to break it. Martin Luther King articulated this view in his Letter from Birmingham Jail: "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws". ]

[edit on 19-9-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

I understand your point. Your point is that peaceful must equal passive, or else it's not peaceful. This is, indeed, incredibly stupid. Sorry if that offends you, but when someone says something stupid, I will say "Hey! Stop being stupid!"

Listen to yourself. Cyberterrorism. You are equating the clogging of a site's bandwidth for a few moments, with the intentional murder of people over a political point. Again, that's stupid. According yo your insipid logic, any action other than total pacifism is terrorism.

"insipid logic"

Try this on for size, my friend.

stinet.dtic.mil...
That would be a link to the US Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence's Handbook on the United States' Military Guidebook to Cyber Terrorism, copyright 2005. Many of the definitions & consideration our law takes concerning various forms of cyber Terrorism are from this book.

In the book, the FBI's definition of "cyber terrorism" is employed as the DOD does not have their own definition of the crime, yet. I reference you to page 18 of 47, 2nd full paragraph, 3rd line down:

In the Federal Government, the FBI describes cyber-terrorism as:
“Cyber-terrorism is a criminal act perpetrated by the use of computers and telecommunications capabilities, resulting in violence, destruction and/or disruption of services to create fear by causing confusion and uncertainty within a given population, with the goal of influencing a government or population to conform to a particular political, social, or ideological agenda.”

(emphasis mine)

Furthermore, an additional definition used by Homeland Security as defined by one Netscape chief strategist, Kevin Coleman follows:

“The premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, against computers and/or networks, with the intention to cause harm or further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives. Or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives.”

"The premeditated use of disruptive activities... (premeditated... hmm, I wonder if that includes using a forum message board like 4chan to orchestrate & plan an attack in advance?) ...against computers and/or networks... (www.foxnews.com or billoreilly.com, hmm, I wonder if those qualify as "networks?") ...with the intention to cause harm... (like maybe flooding the network to cause legitimate site visitors to be met with DDOS messages instead of the information or services they're actually looking to FOX News for?)"

Sounds like cyberterror to me.

As for your definition of "peaceful" it seems to me like you're trying to, uh to steal a line from Barack Obama, "Put lipstick on a pig" by herding as many different forms of protest as possible under the "peaceful" banner in order to legitimize them in the eyes of the average citizen. Defining a cyber attack as a "peaceful protest" certainly would win more support (or at least turn less people against 4chan) than calling it what it is, a cyber attack. Like the old saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar." You seem to be arguing semantics rather than facing the fact that I was neither trying to legitimize nor illegitimize non-peaceful forms of protest. I was merely pointing out that the minute destruction of anything, lives, property, the peace, takes place, the protest is no longer "peaceful" and has turned into civil disobedience at best, chaotic protest at worst.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


You are putting words in my mouth, and possibly the mouths of others. I said that 4chan does not "peddle" child porn and I will tell you for a fact that that is the truth. Porn sites "peddle" porn. News sites "peddle" news. 4chan is a series of message boards full of whatever the hell anyone happens to post. There is no concerted effort or object or being identifiable as 4chan, it is ALL user generated content. All kinds of porn show up there, but this is because individuals choose to submit it, not because the webmaster puts it there. What the O'Reilly statement has done is lump every single person on 4chan together as a peddler of child porn.

It is frankly hilarious seeing all the members here speculating about this. This could itself be called the very zeitgeist of 4chan's /b/ and Anonymous, that is, chaos. You either "get it" or you don't. You should all remember that your concepts of morality, your outrage at their practices, your disagreement with their tactics, only fuels them more. They literally feed off of recognition in any form. I have made a study of my 2 years there. I don't pretend to agree with any particular thing that happens to emerge from 4chan. I'm telling you how it is.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Aside from that hilariously broad definition of terrorism and its subpart, cyberterrorism, you misunderstand the part about the goal. Anonymous has no goal. The individual participants all have personal goals, one of which is almost always "sticking it to the man" in some admittedly insignificant way, but Anonymous lacks the cohesion and organization to have a common goal. They do things for attention, they do things for laughs, they do things to feel important, they do things to inflate their egos. And you give them too much credit. They really are just kids (mostly) with nothing better to do. They are not radical fundamentalists bent on corporate warfare or economic destruction. They're kids on a power trip.

reply to post by scientist


You are more or less correct here. Although, criticism of Scientology did not begin until after the Tom Cruise video incident began. And there is a great difference between Anonymous and the anonymous users of 4chan. The members of 4chan calling themselves "Anonymous" have basically disowned themselves from the branch of Anonymous that protests against Scientology. They do not consider the protest Anons part of "their Anonymous". These Anonymous from /b/ that are in question here are not those that protest Scientology. They come from a common starting point, but are not the same.
If you choose not to believe me, go to /b/ yourself and start talking about Scientology. You'll see exactly what I mean.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Anyone who supports criminals and criminal behavior, even if its in words only, are themselves criminals by definition.

How about the CIA and Drug Running? Asassination? Murder-For-Hire?
The FBI and NSA with Illegal Wiretapping? Illegal search and siezure? lying under oath?

Originally posted by Blaine91555Cyber-Terrorism causes billions in damages that are passed on to consumers and causes billions in additional costs in protecting against them. Everyone who does business and their customers are the victims. This is not a child's game. It is a major criminal endeavor.

Defending them is the same as defending any other thief or vandal. They are cheap thugs and so are their supporters.

So do you support and defend the CIA, FBI and NSA any longer?
All I have to do to prove my point is look at the evening news.

shall we talk about current political administration?

reply to post by burdman30ott6

Nobody has the right to disrupt another's business unless that business is illegal or restricting their rights, neither of which is appropriate to claim in this case.

Propaganda over the public airwaves is illegal.

Well, it looks as if 'Anonymous' has went after Oprah this time:



Still retarded though how everyone thinks 'Anonymous' is nothing but a big pedophile organization bent on hacking everyone's computers and raping their children

Like I've said before. The MSM has blown 'Anonymous' out of proportion. 'Anonymous' is nothing more than a message board for people to post randomly. That mean anything can be posted and it is posted anonymously. That means porn, video games, rape, death, torture, guns, sports, etc.

AND something the MSM doesn't tell anyone, the 'Anonymous' forum doesn't tolerate child pornography. They ban the 'Anonymous' user on site and delet the pictures and the thread.



[edit on 19-9-2008 by MatrixBaller04]

One has to wonder if the internet hate machine is slowly killing it's self or slowly becoming unstoppable as it's a thin line, Two or three years ago you would of never of saw discussions like this widespread and it can be a curse as the quality of memes these days speak for themselves, it's like a self fulling joke anonymous is one of the least anonymous groups on the planet now.

Yet in a way it's becoming a successful corporation and religion by hostile takeover and attacking and smearing other corporations and religions out of there place.

You've got the world connected to each other in a classless system and at anyone one time millions of grey matter cells focused on one issue working overtime on it.

Like capitalism and religious systems to survive it needs to constantly bring in more and more users and methaphorically selling the product of brotherhood and empowerment for the end result of lulz in anyway which is basically the profit or prayer of the other systems the oil that runs the engine.

We're witnessing 21st century Jihad without a bullet being fired or a bomb being shot.

It's inevitable people in power are going to try and clamp down on it and internet use as whole. But when the ideal has become so ingrained and rooted and anyone could possibly be a Btard it'll be scary times for them.

So nothing happened? All this hype for nothing? Oh well.

reply to post by scientist



good deal..i hope they crash that puppet show...

# faux "news"


(*_*)

Originally posted by ANoNyMiKE
Nice! How does Faux figure they peddle child porn!?

I hate to say it, but anyone who goes around hacking into and stealing information from users online accounts, deserves any accusations tossed at them. These guys are a form of the lowest common denominator on the 'net, and instead of using their skills for the better good, they abuse it and attack victims.

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by ANoNyMiKE
Nice! How does Faux figure they peddle child porn!?

I hate to say it, but anyone who goes around hacking into and stealing information from users online accounts, deserves any accusations tossed at them. These guys are a form of the lowest common denominator on the 'net, and instead of using their skills for the better good, they abuse it and attack victims.

YOU GUYS ARE ALL IDIOTS!!! It isn't the group 'Anonymous' itself doing anything. ANONYMOUS DOES NOT EXIST!!! Anonymous stems from 4chan.org because you can post ANONYMOUSLY!! Don't hold the anonymous posters of these message boards responsible. Hold the people that do the attacks responsible.

There is no such thing as an 'anonymous' group that is hell bent on hacking computers and raping children. The people that do this are the 40 year old virgins that live in mommies basement. They have a lot of tiem on ther hands and have pretty much taught themselves to hack.

And as far as child pornography goes, most of the underage porn on the site comes from the actual person themselves posting naked and asking what everyone else thinks of him/her.

PLEASE do some research into this before you justthrow out accusations like this.

I post and browse 4chan a lot. I don't hack computers, I don't rape children. But I guess that doesn't matter.

And I'll say it again.

IF YOU HONESTLY THINK A GROUP THAT CALLS THEMSELVES 'ANONYMOUS' IS REAL, THEN YOU DESERVE TO BE HACKED BY THEM.

Whoa that Oprah clip was crazy. You could visibly see her anger.

I do think there is misunderstanding regarding the pedophile accusations. A lot of people get VERY angry at the very mention of something of that nature, and fail to see clearly enough to investigate further. Because of Oprah's own past, she is clearly has a very emotional response to the accusations of child rape.
I do think she is doing an extreme disservice to her viewers (and she has many) by not attempting to verify the information.

Accusations like that are extremely serious, and should not be thrown around carelessly.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by Brittany]

I've been wanting to post this for awhile. It may be a bit OT but it does deal with Anon and Scientology. I am not a "member" of Anonymous though I pretty much support the activities which are publicly attributed to them. But I do think that they are mostly (surely not all, of course) a bunch of antisocial geeky teens and maybe young adults. I'm not saying there's anything wrong at all with that, or what they're doing, but they are not the fearful subversive entity some might like to portray them as. Not yet at least. There is much to learn, and time is running out.

Here's a message to the young'uns from some folks who really know the score, and have been around a bit longer...

Message to Anonymous from the Church of the Subgenius

(Please note I am neither a member nor in any way affiliated with the Church of the Subgenius, although I do appreciate their work and occasionally peruse their website and alt.slack.)

[edit: here's one thats more of an admonishment to anon. it and the comments are quite entertaining. www.youtube.com...

[edit on 19-9-2008 by shipovfools]

Originally posted by ANoNyMiKE
Nice! How does Faux figure they peddle child porn!?

Basic social psychology my friend. Everyone would do good to take it
in college. I did, made an A. There are 4 things you can say about
someone that will be believed without evidence immediately.

1. This persons a pedo.

2. This persons a wife beater.

3. This person is a rapist.

4. This person does drugs.

Welcome to the world of the REAL.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by Memysabu]

IS there a video link to back up this fawx newz attack or not!? If not then IDC and I have nothing more to say.

Uh, it looks like Anonymous was successful.

http://__._/wiki/Conservative_commentator_Bill_O%27Reilly%27s_website_hacked

Two days after someone broke into the email account of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, unknown intruders have hacked the website of conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly and posted personal details of more than 200 of its subscribers. The breach into BillOreilly.com came as retaliation for remarks O'Reilly made on Fox News condemning the attack on Palin's Yahoo email account, according to Wikileaks, a site that makes it easy for whistleblowers, hackers and anyone else to leak documents. As proof, Wikileaks posted a screenshot of the BillOreilly.com administrative interface that showed the names, email addresses, passwords, and home town of 20 subscribers of the website. In all, information belonging to 205 subscribers was intercepted, according to Eric Marston, CTO of Nox Solutions, the company that maintained the website. The hack came in response to comments O'Reilly made on Fox News about the posting of contents of Palin's email account, including pictures of her daughter and her contact list.

PS.. Sorry if i'm doing this wrong, this is my first post.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by Evil_Santa]