Anonymous attacks Monsanto

page: 6
122
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by AlexKintner
 


Hahaha i can tell you have spent some time in the irc channel. However if net censorship were to occur there would only be more intense resistance by even more people. Sounds to me like your more worried about being able to look at certain websites than being actually free.

ETA 'Armchair Activism' was just the start.
edit on 3-7-2011 by mb2591 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mb2591
 


Just as many anons are only fighting against net censorship so they can continue to pirate games and movies or pass around child porn (CP). c wat i did thar?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
This makes me VERY happy to see!!! Its weighs heavy on my mind...specially when i feel helpless to stop it because i don't know where to begin in trying to stop it! I hope what ever anon. is doing WORKS! So tired of these greedy people only caring about themselves, and us having to worry about weather or not we are gonna end up having to watch our babies die.. and ourselves!



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexKintner
reply to post by mb2591
 


Just as many anons are only fighting against net censorship so they can continue to pirate games and movies or pass around child porn (CP). c wat i did thar?


Yea I can see exactly what happened. You couldn't come up with a response to my previous post. So you made up some # to use for your argument that has no backing. Plus p2p networks, torrents, file sharing will always be made possible regardless of how much censoring there is. Censorship of certain sites would be a little harder to make a work around because it would be easy to block all traffic to that site.
edit on 3-7-2011 by mb2591 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mb2591
 


Regarding Anonymous attack on Monsanto: Good job. I had read about the Indian farmers commiting suicide a few months back and something did not seem right or make sense. Now it all does after hearing them explaining what is going on. The poison has got to go away.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by depth om
anon are a cover for agents to do digital false flags to sanction/license internet usage


You must have missed the bit where they blatantly attacked anyone who suggested we censor the internet. You know... the whole point.


no, that's my point.. anon is the perfect enemy of the net according to the feds, just like terrorists are the perfect enemy of the world. vague, obtuse enemies.

if you guys can't see that, you're blind.. seriously lol



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by depth om
 


yea I guess.. blinded by the possibility of truly being free.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mb2591
 


Made stuff up, eh? Just like you completely fabricated why I would be annoyed that what anonymous does affects me. Reply if you want, but you won't receive one back from me. Your hypocrisy and walking into that has rendered anything you further say of zero value to me. Nice job



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
It's about time.

I hope anon. and perhaps lulzsec will work hard to destroy these scum of the Earth.


Die monsanto.


Relevant~



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by depth om
 


Star for you. I completely agree the moniker 'anon' is now being used to get net censorship implemented. I will say IMO there was a time where they were what it seems like many still feel they are. That time is around a couple years removed, though. If you were watching it was almost blatantly obvious that anon had been infiltrated because there was a dramatic shift in the focus of raids and an increase in raids and PR for the raids.

'Anon' is the perfect cover for the exact reasons you said.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexKintner
reply to post by mb2591
 


Made stuff up, eh? Just like you completely fabricated why I would be annoyed that what anonymous does affects me. Reply if you want, but you won't receive one back from me. Your hypocrisy and walking into that has rendered anything you further say of zero value to me. Nice job


Oh yea I fabricated it? Or did I take that information straight out of your previous post? Check this out here's the post I took it out of...


Originally posted by AlexKintner
reply to post by mb2591
 


Yes there is and they existed long before imageboards and iirc channels. They just had a different label back then. I'm against the script kiddies and DDoS attackers. They try to play in a world they don't understand and sometimes get pent up doing so. That's a fact. It is too broad of a group. Which means since they are everything and nothing they can be influenced to do anything or nothing and it is playing right into TPTB hands. Somewhere around 18 months ago anons attacks got too political for me. It became about agendas and not just fighting for the people. They've given lawmakers the case for the net censorship they claim to fight against and that affects me. Which is B.S.. Citizens like myself shouldn't have to suffer because some have been duped into playing out a political agendas

Plus, the subculture is too infiltrated to side with because one in four is playing for the other team and the group is not technically proficient enough as a whole. In the past I would side based on the issue, but I've always just lurked because I don't do armchair activism.


edit on 3-7-2011 by AlexKintner because: changed word, added another


And here it is " They've given lawmakers the case for the net censorship they claim to fight against and that affects me. Which is B.S.. Citizens like myself shouldn't have to suffer because some have been duped into playing out a political agendas".

Soo you still think I fabricated my argument like you??
You probably won't even be able to respond to this so I will just stop now.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mb2591
 


Classy guy. Spinning like Bill O'Reilly now. Or maybe it is a reading comprehension thing because you must have forgot you said this:



Sounds to me like your more worried about being able to look at certain websites than being actually free.


Which was what I was referring to. But victory is yours, dude. You got a reply. A winrar is you


EDIT: I'm truly baffled as to how you would have assumed I was referring to anything else
edit on 3-7-2011 by AlexKintner because: line added



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I am happy to contribute the domain www.evilbigcorp.com... for this effort. I tried to just set it up to domain forward to monsanto.com but godaddy did not follow through on the request. I am guessing they are afraid of Evil-Big-Corp's lawyers. If anyone has ideas for hosting use or forwarding let me know.
edit on 3-7-2011 by wayouttheredude because: added link



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexKintner
reply to post by mb2591
 


Classy guy. Spinning like Bill O'Reilly now. Or maybe it is a reading comprehension thing because you must have forgot you said this:



Sounds to me like your more worried about being able to look at certain websites than being actually free.


Which was what I was referring to. But victory is yours, dude. You got a reply. A winrar is you


haha no I didn't forget I'd said that... and I was hoping you would do exactly what you just did I think.. If I understand you correctly you are saying that you shouldn't have to suffer from web censorship..but its not getting to certain websites that you worry about.. so what is it your worried about?

ETA also 'attacking' different aspects of my character.. ie "Classy guy. Spinning like Bill O'Reilly now." is not helping your argument any..
edit on 3-7-2011 by mb2591 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mb2591
 


You are twisting what I wrote and taking it out of context. In your mind you think you trapped me in a corner. IN YOUR MIND



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexKintner
reply to post by mb2591
 


You are twisting what I wrote and taking it out of context. In your mind you think you trapped me in a corner. IN YOUR MIND


Oh yea? Enlighten me. How did I take it out of context?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AlexKintner
 


I find this particular argument rather comical, probably because I have a warped sense of humor. In my opinion, censoring/limiting internet access would be about the only thing that would get the apathetic masses off their asses. Even if you only take the internet generation into consideration, people who can't even remember a time when there was no internet. I can't imagine all would just lay down and allow it to happen, silently, without question or fight. Honestly, I see *this* as a huge SHTF scenario, because it would get ugly, without a doubt. Strip people of their guns and/or internet, and you have a revolution in the making.
My opinion, take it or leave it.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TiggersTheMan
 


Haha I could actually see that as a very real possibility.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mb2591
 


A shame I have to do your critical thinking for you. I sincerely hope you don't need to be spoon fed anything further. Here:



If I understand you correctly you are saying that you shouldn't have to suffer from web censorship


You did not understand correctly. Suffer from anonymous NOT web censorship: I am a Mastercard and Visa carrier, I buy and sell on Amazon, I like to play certain on-line games. See they've already made people suffer all while helping paint the case for net censorship. How may I suffer in the future? Harsher and/or more laws being enabled due to their actions and now possibly at an expedited pace. My personal information may be stolen by the same people supposedly trying to protect my freedom...I could go on.

edit on 3-7-2011 by AlexKintner because: edit



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexKintner
reply to post by depth om
 


Star for you. I completely agree the moniker 'anon' is now being used to get net censorship implemented. I will say IMO there was a time where they were what it seems like many still feel they are. That time is around a couple years removed, though. If you were watching it was almost blatantly obvious that anon had been infiltrated because there was a dramatic shift in the focus of raids and an increase in raids and PR for the raids.

'Anon' is the perfect cover for the exact reasons you said.


But it simply isn't that simple. There is no evidence that the anon movement is orchestrated beyond what it already is. So many people believe that these hackers have sprung up from nowhere and are suddenly attacking people, this is not true - the only things that are changing, is the realisation of global corruption and these guys are cleverly shining a torch on every corrupt bastard out there. You lot are quick to assume a DDOS does nothing but irritate, but for every DDOS attack, the media highlights it and it spreads like wildfire. Now if only 1/10 people decide to ask 'why was this govt or corporation attacked' then even the 1/10 would cause the information to expand, information will be passed.

The second side of this coin, is as you say - the feds are making it tough in some countries, but let's not forget that anonymous has in some cases prevented censorship (remember all those tweets and blogs in the recent riots from supposedly heavily censored countries like Korea, Iran, China, Syria etc etc?

How many of those people were given access to tell there stories? What about the collapse of the public image of certain lawyers, companies, directors - what about the HUGE swathe of information now available at our fingertips?

Every counter-attack by the feds or corrupt law enforcement only adds to the numbers - hundreds are rallying now, gaining momentum, new targets are appearing by the week (as opposed to the odd attack every year or so) - for every computer that is cut off, or every alleged hacker or associate that is arrested, hundreds more emerge.

With an increasing number of angry, passionate, intelligent people - do you think the feds would be so stupid, as to restrict the internet anymore? Online warfare is one thing, people rioting, protesting and fighting with the government or police is another.

The so called 'immune' companies are slowly realising that people are stood outside their virtual gates with pitchforks and torches and cannons, now the companies / govts need to start listening - as any more restrictions will only force those virtual pitchforks into the real world.





top topics
 
122
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join