Opinions on: Anonymos, Hacktivists, And what they do

[HorrorHiro]

(For those of you wondering about the format of this post's title I'm planning on creating a series of post on this particular forum focused on the opinions of others on various topics, this series of post will have "Opinion on:" in every title and feel free to use it.)




I wanted to know what the We're Alive community's opinions on the group and or organization known as Anonymous, the hacktivist movements, the Anarchist sect of Anonymous, and so on. Say and believe what you will but personally completely support the group of freedom fighting hackers. Now obviously there are certain issues that the group has always faced, such as the fact that their anonymity and "free flowing" non-hierarchical organizational structure means that anyone can commit all sorts of acts and say that they did it on behalf on Anonymous. On the flip side their Anonymity and the fact that literally anyone can be a member means their numbers are vast and although the groups organizational structure isn't "standard" (for lack of a better word) each and every single member of the group is equally important and share the same amount of power. Which means that any and every single member can create an OP or operation simply by bringing it up in discussion. For instance their current "OpCartel" which is an operation against the highly trained, heavily armed, very militarized gang, cartels, and similar groups that plague the country of Mexico. If no other operation proves that they effect lives outside of the internet this one does, although not much is publicly known about this operation except for the fact that the Mexican sect of the organization has dis-involved themselves from the operation due to the dangers of hackers that work for the cartels and gangs locating and murdering them. It is widely suspected that Anonymous is working with a group of armed civilians known as "Los Mata Zetas" or "the Zeta Killers" who are a group of armed and trained civilians that realize the corruption in Mexico goes far to deep for the police and military forces to be of any real use to Mexico's populace. This group of civilians specifically attacks the infamous Los Zetas cartel but have also attacked the other gangs and cartels that terrorize the Mexican people.

[reaper239]

say what you will, they're cyber terrorists. one of their members was caught in europe for hacking some government thing and they threw a hissy fit. any time they don't get what they want, or someone doesn't bow down, stroke their ego, and kiss their assess, they pitch a fit and wreck havoc on inocent people. take that sony thing, what exactly was their problem with sony? does anyone know? or was it just some hackers who got their jollies pissing in someone elses cornflakes? look at the IRA: their tactics have devolved somewhat, but thier goal was, is, and always has been a unified ireland, free of british rule. whether you agree with their methods or not, they are freedom fighters. the chechnyan rebels that plagued russia for so long was a rebellion aimed at freeing them from russian rule. the american colonists became freedom fighters when they challenged britain for their freedom. anonymous is a group of hackers with a god complex who think they are above the law. they aren't and eventually they will learn that.

[HorrorHiro]

say what you will, they're cyber terrorists. one of their members was caught in europe for hacking some government thing and they threw a hissy fit. any time they don't get what they want, or someone doesn't bow down, stroke their ego, and kiss their assess, they pitch a fit and wreck havoc on inocent people. take that sony thing, what exactly was their problem with sony? does anyone know? or was it just some hackers who got their jollies pissing in someone elses cornflakes? look at the IRA: their tactics have devolved somewhat, but thier goal was, is, and always has been a unified ireland, free of british rule. whether you agree with their methods or not, they are freedom fighters. the chechnyan rebels that plagued russia for so long was a rebellion aimed at freeing them from russian rule. the american colonists became freedom fighters when they challenged britain for their freedom. anonymous is a group of hackers with a god complex who think they are above the law. they aren't and eventually they will learn that.

Opinions are what they, to each their own. but remember the whole part about how anyone can do anything and say it's on behalf of the group? Just keep that in mind when you accuse the same people who have played significant roles in current/modern revolutions (Egypt, Lybia) when you accuse them as a hole of being "cyber terrorists". But i digress I didn't start this thread for people to argue opinions, simply to share them.

[reaper239]

i don't know how much credit i'd give them for the arab spring, which, btw, is being highjacked by terrorist groups like the muslim brotherhood. in other words, egypt is shifting from a dictatorship that aided us to some degree, to a militant terrorist state devoted to a worldwide kalipha. if anonymous really is responsible for the egyptian revolution, they are responsible for the situation in egypt going from bad to worse. at least mubarak pretended he wanted to treat people fairly. but that's beside the point, if you run an org that can be co-opted by anyone, then their mission is open for interpretation. in other words: both interpretations are correct, but are we better off having an organization that commits both acts of terror and acts of benevolence, or would we be better off without them.

let's create a different example: let's make a country, call it worldtopia, and each city in worldtopia is allowed to govern itself as it sees fit. some cities are democracies, some republics, some are dictatorships, and some are socialist. now let's create a group in worldtopia, we'll call them the activists, who have no criteria to join, no standars, and no rules. in cities that are oppressive they fight the autorities to topple the oppressive regimes and bring freedom to the people, but once the regime is toppled, they leave and move on to the next city. in some cities, they attack the authorities to bring about socialism, with the belief that that will make the peoples lives better. in some cities the activists simply rob and destroy for no other purpose than that they can, or they want to make money, while there are other roving bands of activists who just create chaos for fun, and other roving bands that fight crime (but not other activists). so now we have several cities that are without a government, several that are bankrupted fighting the activists, and several where crime is dropping. is worldtopia better for having a group with no standards and no rules that let's people put on some badge and do what they will in the name of the activists?

[HorrorHiro]

i don't know how much credit i'd give them for the arab spring, which, btw, is being highjacked by terrorist groups like the muslim brotherhood. in other words, egypt is shifting from a dictatorship that aided us to some degree, to a militant terrorist state devoted to a worldwide kalipha. if anonymous really is responsible for the egyptian revolution, they are responsible for the situation in egypt going from bad to worse. at least mubarak pretended he wanted to treat people fairly. but that's beside the point, if you run an org that can be co-opted by anyone, then their mission is open for interpretation. in other words: both interpretations are correct, but are we better off having an organization that commits both acts of terror and acts of benevolence, or would we be better off without them.

let's create a different example: let's make a country, call it worldtopia, and each city in worldtopia is allowed to govern itself as it sees fit. some cities are democracies, some republics, some are dictatorships, and some are socialist. now let's create a group in worldtopia, we'll call them the activists, who have no criteria to join, no standars, and no rules. in cities that are oppressive they fight the autorities to topple the oppressive regimes and bring freedom to the people, but once the regime is toppled, they leave and move on to the next city. in some cities, they attack the authorities to bring about socialism, with the belief that that will make the peoples lives better. in some cities the activists simply rob and destroy for no other purpose than that they can, or they want to make money, while there are other roving bands of activists who just create chaos for fun, and other roving bands that fight crime (but not other activists). so now we have several cities that are without a government, several that are bankrupted fighting the activists, and several where crime is dropping. is worldtopia better for having a group with no standards and no rules that let's people put on some badge and do what they will in the name of the activists?

Hold up, the Muslim Brotherhood isn't a terrorist organization. Have they shown support for terrorist groups, yes. But 1 person terrorist is another's hero...I'm sure you wouldn't call the American soldiers still fighting in Afghanistan or the soldiers who fought in Iraq terrorists. But I promise you there is an entire generation of youth in those countries who watched the US war machine destroy their families and those same youth now and forever will see the US as their devout enemy and I personally can not and will not hold anything against them for that.

[reaper239]

the difference is provocation, and do you think that anyone in afghanistan was better under al quada? we were attacked and we went into the country that was harboring the organization responsible for the worst attack on americans since pearl harbor. and i don't see all the bad when millions of iraqis turned out to excercise their freedoms to vote, despite threats of violence. see, the major difference between american soldiers and terrorists is that american soldiers will fight to protect innocent people, while terrorists seek to kill innocent people to advance their goals. and the muslim brotherhood isn't a terrorist organization? then what qualifies? i'm sure the reason they've been banned from almost every country they've cropped up in is because they advocate peace and loving. i'm not saying that all muslims are evil, but the muslim brotherhood certainly counts. when an organization advocates violence against civilians for the purpose of coercing another group of people, that is terrorism. and to bring it all home, that is what anonymous does. if they focused their attacks on specific organizations that were harming people, that would be one thing, but they don't, and it's a result of the very structure that protects them.

btw, can i just say how much i love these lively thoughtful debates? because i really do.