[size=150]Anonymous declares online war against Isis as it takes down multiple Twitter and Facebook accounts[/size]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPE_sRhZp6M[/youtube]
I have seen Anonymous in action… over the whole anti-fracking debacle, and 1000s of them turn up to petition… along with famous faces like Vivienne Westwood and Debbie Harry, amongst others…
I have not, and probably will not (because of my political duties) rally with Anonymous, but I support them on this cause. Do you?
I agree with their actions, but…
Pretty sure that if anybody can be called Muslim, it’s (Muslim) fundamentalists, the same way that if anybody can be called Christian, it’s (Christian) fundamentalists. They follow the scripture as it is.
If we’re gonna call somebody not-Muslim or not-Christian, isn’t it more reasonable to go by facts and how accurately they follow their scriptures? Instead of giving the usual emotional response “X aren’t a part of group Y because X actually follows their rules is a minority”. Going by that argument, out of tens of thousands of denominations in Christianity, only one is actually Christian, the rest are merely the minority and therefore not Christian.
^ Agree.
Its Marvel comics in real life.
Vigilantes, , good or bad? Slippery slope. They are doing good for now but, will it last?
True, but, vigilantes are cool… for the most part.
Their way of expression really is self-righteous, fanatical and comic-al 
Sometimes we just need a person to punish the bad guys when the law is unwilling due to corruption/incapable
It is a noble sentiment but blocked accounts in Facebook will not prevent a hostage situation. It might prevent young men and women from Europe from joining ISIS but leave untouched thousands in the ME to whom ISIS can still reach.
It will make it worse not better. Everything that has been done in the Middle East has made the situation worse not better. Be prepared for a long and bloody war.
Interesting question.
A small group of people limiting the freedom of speech and expression of another.
Sure, ISIS is committing terrible atrocities and it’s easy to justify this action against it.
But what about the next Anonymous operation? Maybe it will attack a group which you don’t think deserves an attack.
Unlike government agencies, in democracies, which are answerable to elected representatives and therefore ultimately to the voters … Anonymous is not answerable to anyone.
Isn’t that how ISIS came through power in the first place. Through our support…
Anonymous’s abilities lie in social media, hacking, and protests. I don’t know what that’s going to accomplish against an organization who’s in open war against western society. Maybe if they target the means of recruiting in the U.K… Anyway, Anonymous isn’t what they used to be, a bit more fragmented, no political consistency. It takes something like ISIS that everybody can agree is bad to actually motivate them to act. Still, I’d rather have them in my corner than against me.
No, they are not.
This is where people confuse. There is no such thing in ISIS real agenda. That is merely a cover to justify its wrongdoings, just in the same way US troops entered in Afganistan to help Mujahidean in their freedom struggle, and Iraq to destroy chemical weapons and establish democracy.
If ISIS will not say that it is against western world, how it can ever attract those brain washed muslim youths to join it in terrorism, besides getting the silent sympathy of other Muslims, who are feeling offended by western invasion in Muslim countries, one after one?
ISIS is extracting oil and earned/still earning millions from selling oil. But, does anyone know to which country they sell it? Has there been even a single word uttered about this ever? All they say that ISIS sells its oil in the black market?
But, where this black market does exist?
After all, it cannot sell oil to the end consumers directly. There has to be some mediatior and it cannot be none other than big western oil MNC’s, which must be having their fat cut in the deal.
[u]The only and only agenda of ISIS is take control of oil fields in that region, so that it can earn money and power by selling which to western countries. Rest is excuse.
I can bet my life that the top leadership of ISIS must be having millions of dollars deposited in the safe heavens like Swiss Banks by now. That is the actual agenda of ISIS.
Secondly, i am quite sure if today the western world would give political recognition to ISIS, and allow it to sell oil openly, ISIS would withdraw from terrorism tomorrow.[/u]
with love,
sanjay
Secondly, as far as the topic of the thread is concerned, i openly subscribe to the efforts to sideline ISIS on the net. That is positive move and should be supported.
But, i cannot refrain myself from asking the same question to Charlie Habdo, and its supporters of free speech at any cost.
Would all they condem restricting ISIS from free speech or want it to have the same liberty to spread its agenda on the net, as they ask for themselves?
Either they should stand in the support of ISIS or accept that free speech cannot allowed blindly in all cases.
The means cannot be judged in isolation, unless the ultimate goal is not defined properly.
[b]Let us keep focus of the goal, not the means. Free speech is merely a tool, not an ultimate goal. The same is true for all liberties and restrictions. The definitions should always target the goal. The actual goal is betterment of the society and that should be kept in the mind while judging anything.
Free speech/liberty is a subjective issue, which should be in compliance with objectivity, and that is overall betterment of the society[/b].
with love,
sanjay
It raises the question: why couldn’t the US government have done this? Surely, it was not that difficult.
Jr,
Like Afghan Mujahedeen, ISIS is also a step son of US, who betrayed later. It was none other than US, who initially provided military support to ISIS and Saudi Arabia provided money to uproot Asad govt from Syria. But, after a certain limit, ISIS stopped paying puppet to its masters because the realized that, if they can do it for others, why not for themselves?
As far as tracking ISIS oil is concerned, it is MNC’s who run the show behind the doors, not the US govt. From where those millions come, which used to be spent in election campaigns? Remember, capital has no nationality. It will go where it find worth going, whether it is US, China or even an Islamic caliphate. It does not commit itself to anyone.
Secondly, US govt is no God either. There are many things which it cannot control. Had that not been the case, 9/11 would have not happened either.
with love,
sanjay
with love,
sanjay
I personally don’t care about the right to free speech of those who want to ban the right to free speech of others.
Also, free speech isn’t absolute (but then again, what is). It doesn’t mean I can manipulate little children to steal for me, incite violence and say whatever I want, wherever I want (such as interrupting some public speech and demanding I take over).
It just means that, in certain contexts, I have the freedom to express my views and others the freedom to criticize them. I agree it’s not a black and white issue if that’s the point.
Nicely summarized. Anything appears to be permissible in the name of capital.
We appear to be benefitting from low crude oil barrel prices at the moment (my car is cheap to run).
We also appear to be benefitting from arms sales (note the New Market that we have captured).
This should be telling us something significant about motivations of all peoples (not just the US).
Yes, that is precisely the point. If you consider that it is grey area, which it is, you have to throw this premise out of the window that individual liberty must be upheld in all cases. You also have to discard the tag lines like- this has nothing to do with others and who the hell are others to decide for myself.
But, you are saying it now because free speech is not suiting your perception here, and rightly so. But, you were pleading for absolute freedom in other cases.
You have to remember that whatever position you will take, will apply to all cases, irrespective of the fact that you are okay with those or not, or do not take the premise of free speech/liberty as a cornerstone. Take one stand and stop switching sides according to the convenience.
You also have to accept that free speech does not entail welfare of the society. Free speech may benefit the society in many cases, but not in all. And, that implies that you will decide each and every case on its merit, keeping the intention, goal and the implications in the mind of every case of free speech/liberty.
But, when i say so, you tend to plead that i am restricting the liberty of the individuals, which is their hard fought out fundamental right. Remember, Charlie habdo and ISIS have equal rights as far as the free speech is concerned, so whatever you decide, would be applicable to both.
Choose and define carefully what you want as a cornerstone but you are not supposed to cherry pick after that.
with love,
sanjay
Yes, it is about all countries, not US alone. Others are not sane either. Rich Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE etc are equally guilty for whatever is happening is the region. These countries allowed US, or rather invited there to uphold their dominance over other countries of the region.
It is true that Iraq war gave a new lease of life to US arms companies, especially Leakhard Martin, which was in serious financial crisis at that time.
Secondly, war is an opportunity for more business not only for arms manufacturers, but a lot of other people too like agents, politicians and army officers of the buyer country. Millions of dollars trade hands during such deals at individual level, cutting across the lines of class and countries. It is a win-win situation for all parties involved, except those who suffer the consequences of the war personally. Thus, involved people want tension to be there all the time, at least, if not war. That keeps everyone happy.
with love,
sanjay
This is why if we, as a society, wish for this situation to end then we need to examine the causes of the problems in the Middle East. The situation will continue unless we remove the causes.
Anonymous may make us feel good but it does nothing to remove the causes and, in reality, it will only inflame the situation (not remedy it).
Satiations only resolve themselves and dissipate when we remove the causes.
They forgot the iSIS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcjLEwZqcQI
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcjLEwZqcQI[/youtube]