Originally posted by Nephthys
You're such a lamer Aura.
I am aren't I?
Look, I'll give my final word on the matter. Was the US wrong? Absolutely. Were the hackers wrong? Absolutely again. I'll not justify my country's actions nor will I justify the actions of the hackers. Suffice is to say, I think both are really really really stupid. And if they want to duke it out over the internet, fine by me. I got other things to do in the meantime.
Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
I am aren't I?Look, I'll give my final word on the matter. Was the US wrong? Absolutely. Were the hackers wrong? Absolutely again. I'll not justify my country's actions nor will I justify the actions of the hackers. Suffice is to say, I think both are really really really stupid. And if they want to duke it out over the internet, fine by me. I got other things to do in the meantime.
No sites were hacked.
A DDoS attack (which is all that happened) is not hacking. There's no actual harm done at all beyond a site being down for a short period of time.
Edit: http://gizmodo.com/5877679/anonymous-kills-department-of-justice-site-in-megaupload-revenge-strike
Originally posted by BloodRain
Tad lost on the whole Anonymous thing, whats their goal?
I think they're really interested in promoting internet freedom and freedom of speech. Though really since anyone can be a member of Anonymous and they have no actual group structure they don't have any set goals.
If you meant whats their goal in this attack, simple protest and hacktivism.
Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
I am aren't I?Look, I'll give my final word on the matter. Was the US wrong? Absolutely. Were the hackers wrong? Absolutely again. I'll not justify my country's actions nor will I justify the actions of the hackers. Suffice is to say, I think both are really really really stupid. And if they want to duke it out over the internet, fine by me. I got other things to do in the meantime.
Hey hey, I was only teasing.
The point has never been "don't hit back". The point is "don't hit back unless you can hit back so hard they can't hit you again", otherwise it's a waste of time.
"Standing up for your principles" is all well and good, until doing so ends up ****ing everyone else around you, which is what is going to happen when the US gets sick of Anonymous shit and starts using them as a justification for going all big brother on the global community's collective asses.
Anonymous and all these other intrawebs terrorist groups need to learn the lesson that Al-Quaeda learned: if you go up against a country that has unlimited resources, you are eventually going to lose. While Al-Queada getting its shit pushed in to the point where they have to resort to hiring rappers to make pro al-queda rap songs in order to attract new recruits (google it for lulz), doesn't bother me, organizations like anonymous getting the Govs wrath kind of sucks because it's gonna come down on all of us. ... I don't look forward to the day when my username on every game and forum has to be "Isaiah Huggins" instead of Blaxican because "national security" says internet anonymity is bad.
And for the record, let's not pin all the blame on America either. We may have started this shit, but let's not forget that the United Nations is an organization that has a pretty huge number of independent countries in it. If Iran was trying to do what the US is trying to do, the UN would slap sanctions on it so fast their turban covered heads would spin. Yet... the rest of the world is strangely quiet right now. Where's the UK's Prime Minister at? How come he's not nudging Obama right now and saying "Hey bro, this is kind of a bad idea?" What about France's president?
Or Canada's?
Or Germany's?
Or Italy's?
Or any other of these countries that are oh so pure and not bullies?
They're all right there, just standing and silently watching, not doing a damn thing to fight for their so called principles that they love to lord over us.
So really, how is the rest of the world any less responsible for this "threat to liberty"?
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The point has never been "don't hit back". The point is "don't hit back unless you can hit back so hard they can't hit you again", otherwise it's a waste of time.
Well if that’s your philosophy then frankly I feel sorry for you. It’s the same as don’t try unless you know you’re going to win. I cannot even THINK of a worse attitude to take.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
And for the record, let's not pin all the blame on America either. We may have started this shit, but let's not forget that the United Nations is an organization that has a pretty huge number of independent countries in it. If Iran was trying to do what the US is trying to do, the UN would slap sanctions on it so fast their turban covered heads would spin. Yet... the rest of the world is strangely quiet right now. Where's the UK's Prime Minister at? How come he's not nudging Obama right now and saying "Hey bro, this is kind of a bad idea?" What about France's president?Or Canada's?
Or Germany's?
Or Italy's?
Or any other of these countries that are oh so pure and not bullies?
They're all right there, just standing and silently watching, not doing a damn thing to fight for their so called principles that they love to lord over us.
So really, how is the rest of the world any less responsible for this "threat to liberty"?
I can blame you all I want, duh. If other countries did what you say what on earth makes you think the US is going to listen. Like it did with the bird flu? =3 When we all tried to warn you and you wouldn’t have it until there was a reported case, then it was all Black Death mark II. We try to advise you to save lives
“Shall we listen, try to be prepared? Nah! It’s no threat to us! Ohshi-“
What has caused your brain to malfunction into believing we could affect a law you might pass? America has always done what it’s going to do, regardless of what other countries have to say. I agree we SHOULD be fighting you on it, but realistically unless a vast amount start banging on your door, you’ll take no notice.
That and the icing on the proverbial cake is that it’s the US that was founded on Freedom of speech, not ours. Heck mine was a tyrannical empire for a few hundred years.
Originally posted by EvilAngel
Well if that’s your philosophy then frankly I feel sorry for you. It’s the same as don’t try unless you know you’re going to win. I cannot even THINK of a worse attitude to take.
Why is it a bad attitude? If you don't win as fast as you can, the other person is going to keep fighting. The only way to really win is to make it so they literally can't fight back.
Would look for Ender's Game quote but it would require me to get outta bed.
Shut up Aura.
From a military standpoint, yes, that is rational and intelligent, but the idea that you should never try or fight back solely because there is not a 100% chance of curbstomping your "opposition" is stupid, cynical, somewhat cowardly, and lame.
That said, to an extent I see what Blax is saying.
Anonymous is being stupid.
And other countries shouldn't be sitting around without protesting what the US is doing.
But... The US government is still the one violating the rights of non-US citizens and is still, very much, the one to blame.
Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Why is it a bad attitude? If you don't win as fast as you can, the other person is going to keep fighting. The only way to really win is to make it so they literally can't fight back.Would look for Ender's Game quote but it would require me to get outta bed.
No wonder the future looks so bleak when so many young people have this disposition =_=
Okay, going back to an example; bullies at school.
You get hit, you hit back. Sure hard as you like, make them hurt. But you don't need to do something as prosaic as 'win'. Why? Because you're not the only other kid in school. The moment you hit back hard due to the very nature of a bully they will switch to someone who doesn't fight back. It goes against human nature itself to pursue a hard path when an easier one is available to you.
Transplant that into THIS scenario and what do you have?
A very touchy issue a lot of the people you're supposed to be representing clearly fighting you on. There are plenty of other issues to be discussed and problems that won't fix themselves. Why continue to fight down a path the people are against you on? It's ridiculousness.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Shut up Aura.From a military standpoint, yes, that is rational and intelligent, but the idea that you should never try or fight back solely because there is not a 100% chance of curbstomping your "opposition" is stupid, cynical, somewhat cowardly, and lame.
Too bad this is war ho. uhuh
Not curbstomping, just beating them in general. You can suffer as many losses as possible and it doesn't matter. All that matters is winning at the end.
Unless you're playing a game. In which case, it's all about the fun. 😛
Originally posted by EvilAngel
No wonder the future looks so bleak when so many young people have this disposition =_=Okay, going back to an example; bullies at school.
You get hit, you hit back. Sure hard as you like, make them hurt. But you don't need to do something as prosaic as 'win'. Why? Because you're not the only other kid in school. The moment you hit back hard due to the very nature of a bully they will switch to someone who doesn't fight back. It goes against human nature itself to pursue a hard path when an easier one is available to you.
Transplant that into THIS scenario and what do you have?
A very touchy issue a lot of the people you're supposed to be representing clearly fighting you on. There are plenty of other issues to be discussed and problems that won't fix themselves. Why continue to fight down a path the people are against you on? It's ridiculousness.
Faulty logic that depends on the bully being someone who backs down from the first punch. They might be, they might not be. If a bully hits you, you hit back, there really is no way to predict if that bully won't proceed to beat the shit out of you for touching them. The only way to win, via violent solutions, is to hit the bully so hard that not just him but everyone will know not to fvck with you. Problem? If you're scrawny, you'll have to put more effort into it. 😛
Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Faulty logic that depends on the bully being someone who backs down from the first punch. They might be, they might not be. If a bully hits you, you hit back, there really is no way to predict if that bully won't proceed to beat the shit out of you for touching them. The only way to win, via violent solutions, is to hit the bully so hard that not just him but everyone will know not to fvck with you. Problem? If you're scrawny, you'll have to put more effort into it. 😛
I'd fight back all the same. Heck I did once upon a time. I got the ever living beaten out of me.
The point is you've got to let go of ridiculous ideas that winning chances things and losing changes nothing. It just doesn't work like that. You can win a battle and change nothing. But even in defeat if your strength was recognised that can change everything. In terms of changing peoples minds winning is usually less likely to accomplish it than losing. You're not invading a country here. If you win you strip them of their dignity. If you lose they are more likely to respect you without developing a massive vendetta
But I give up after this. You either get it or you just don't, and I have a feeling which way this is going.