Anonymous vs Terrorists

[RavenSky]

Anonymous has announced that they are targeting the terrorists who have claimed responsibility for the attacks at Charlie Hebdo and the French supermarket. Anonymous says they will disrupt the terrorist's online network, and have apparently hijacked several websites already. Most were DoS attacks. One redirected to the search engine DuckDuckGo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkfSRglPmdQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/12/anonymous-hacks-terror-website-in-retaliation-for-/

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/anonymous-retaliates-charlie-hebdo-attacks-213752529.html

Note: This thread is NOT for discussing if Islam is bad, or if Islam causes terrorists. You all have already derailed the Paris shooting thread into that never ending argument, so keep this thread focused on the OP topic, and/or the Pais shootings.

 

[Draconis]

Anonymous might be considered to be terrorists.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting. Anonymous are digital vigilantes. Oddly enough, this effort could be very important because it works to disrupt terrorist propaganda to potential would be terrorists. Why in the hell aren't national governments doing this?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anonymous might be considered to be terrorists.

I don't see them targeting innocents. They're sometimes not careful about guilt but that's not the same thing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anonymous might be considered to be terrorists.

I don't see them targeting innocents. They're sometimes not careful about guilt but that's not the same thing.

They are digital vigilantes.

 

[jab]

I don't see them targeting innocents. They're sometimes not careful about guilt but that's not the same thing.

They are digital vigilantes.

or vigital digilantes

 

[prideandfall]

Why in the hell aren't national governments doing this?

it's a cynical tinfoil response, but i honestly think that this is legitimately: perhaps not consciously, in a mustache-twirling evil sort of way, but definitely in a macro sub-conscious way National Government (of any country) feeds off things like terrorist attacks, in order to justify itself.
whatever noble purpose it may have once had, or whatever lofty philosophy you can ascribe to it now, the fact is that every single National Government on the planet exists to propagate itself and to benefit the highest elite few in charge.
"the people" are at best a tool which operate as a means to an end for the betterment of those at the top, or at worst an obstruction that must be dealt with either physically or psychologically.

governments don't want terrorists gone, they just want attacks to be infrequent enough that the populace is in a heightened state of anxiety, instead of outright panic.

 

[bilby]

Interesting. Anonymous are digital vigilantes. Oddly enough, this effort could be very important because it works to disrupt terrorist propaganda to potential would be terrorists. Why in the hell aren't national governments doing this?

How do you know they aren't?

It seems to me that if you are to be effective in this kind of endeavour for the long term, a good strategy would be to not tell anyone who doesn't need to know that you are doing it.

Of course, if the aggrandisement of your highly publicised 'secret' organisation with a cool sounding name is more important to you than the stated goals of your endeavour, then different rules apply.

National Governments don't tend to feel the need to show the world that they are powerful and dangerous, and that they shouldn't be taken lightly even though they live in their mom's basement.

 

[NobleSavage]

oops...

- - - Updated - - -

Why in the hell aren't national governments doing this?

1) They have. See Stuxnet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
2) They will again.
3) DDoS attacks, website defacing, and doxing are childish.
4) I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are a few undercover FBI or CIA agents within Anonymous.