[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]
The guy who wrote that article is a ****ing douche, flat-out.
"you're showing your immaturity" followed by "I would love nothing more than to shove the business end of a Barret .50 Cal up the ass of every single member of Anonymous and pull the trigger" and yeah, just like that, he's a confirmed moron.
Cyber-terrorism? Seriously? What a bunch of DoHS pipe-fed propaganda bull ****.
Comparing hackers to Al-Qaeda? Give me a ****ing break. Anonymous is not a terrorist organisation. Not everyone who commits a crime against a corporation or a government entity is a terrorist. :|
Filthybastrd
Got any arguments or are you just feeling insulted because it hurts your anonymous feelings?
Strong language yes, immature? explain. A moron? He just explained that although he strongly feelsa certain way, he realizes that abiding to the set rules of societyis enforced by authorities for a reason: Protecting us from ourselves in a certain sense.
What is it then? Overly harsh cyber pranks? Do you know what the definition of terrorism is?
Why not? is there any difference in method and action besides it being virtual? Actually there is, Al Qaeda has significantly larger balls.
Ok, I'm going to run through this carefully, since you asked for arguments whilst someohow completely missing the ones I'd already made. I'll skip the color coding, also.
So, once again:
This guy is a prick He wants really badly to shove a gun-barrel up the ass of some members of a certain group, oh but wait, there's a law against that, and err, I can't, and you guys sure are lucky, etc.
It's a pathetic attempt on his part to appear "badass" (hurr durr, I could just kill these ****ers if not for the law) whilst simultaneously imparting a moral lesson, which isn't based in morals at all, but rather on the idea that we should follow the law because it is there, and it is good for us. That's childish, idiot thinking.
If you follow a law simply because the law exists, without considering the reasoning behind it, without testing it against your own sense of morality, then you aren't a free moral agent, you're a tool.
For example, let's say I driving down the road I want to turn around, so I go up to a red light and get in the left-hand turn lane. Now let's say that the light remains red for some time, and no traffic is coming from the opposite direction.
Following this guy's reasoning, it makes perfect sense to sit and wait at that red light for five, even ten minutes, because there is a law against turning left at a red light, and it hasn't turned green yet. No matter that the light may be broken, or glitched, it's the law, man, and clearly it's there for my protection, to protect me from myself, even.
I don't know about you, but I'm not waiting. I'm going to check for cops, make sure no traffic is coming, and then I'm going to go, because I'm not a moron and I don't feel like waiting around for a light that isn't going to change. I'm not bound by the law, and I don't bind myself to the law; I choose to obey the law, and I choose to disobey the law, as I will. I make my own free, moral decisions, and I see that as being my responsibility, not the government's.
This metaphor applies nicely to the rest of our discussion.
Who is a terrorist? Does the government decide? Does Sony decide?
You want to tell me that a bunch of hackers taking down the network service of a private corporation are comparable to men who strap bombs to themselves and walk into the front doors of embassies, or onto city buses, and kill themselves and dozens of other people?
Is there a difference in method and action? Are you serious? Not even in a virtual realm are the two acts remotely similar.
Enemies of the state and of corporations are not automatically terrorists. Terms like "cyber-terrorist" are just propaganda phrases used to seperate "undesirables" from the rest of the populace.
Why, they're not regular citizens, they're bloody terrorists!
Almost makes it seem reasonable to imprison them, or shove rifles up their asses, doesn't it?
That's what happens when you allow the paranoid, fear-fueling vocabulary of Homeland Security departments (or secret police for that matter) to enter into your mind and claim a spot.
This guy, this tool who wrote that article, he's completely in line with that feed, he's tuned into it, to the degree that he seems incapable of thinking for himself.
Hell, look at you, man. One comment from me, and you've already accused me of being a member of "anonymous", despite not knowing me, and despite the fact that I'm a fairly regular poster on these forums, and at the very least am not some sort of fiend or obvious troll.
You tell me which of us is more gulity of hive-think.
Log in to comment