Topic: Anonymous target Israel

[Mooning Freddy]

I would have some respect for the so-called web-fighters if they weren't such ignorant assholes.

The attackers, who struck on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day, in particular targeted the website of Yad Vashem, Israel's national Holocaust museum. Cyber attack expert Roni Becher said that the Yad Vashem website has come under a "fairly massive attack."

Who are Anonymous anyway? Are they even organized? Or are they a community of "1337 h4x0r5" who just find a subject they're pissed off about in underground forums and go like "hey let's screw them and prove we've got a bigger dick than all those politicians" kind of people?

[Flame]

They are not Organized. That's the point behind being anonymous. You can be anyone anywhere. The media in particular seems to have this notion that they are an established group, when they really are not. Often times a group of anons will get together to do something, but that does not mean that the same particular group of anons will be behind whatever next target comes up on the media. The Anons who attacked the Church of Scientology are not necessarily the same ones who do something else later. Also, because of a lack of central leadership and actual organization, that makes them an easy scapegoat for any kind of hacking. Remember Sony blaming anonymous for hacking PSN? yeah, I call bullshit on that.

[Mooning Freddy]

Also, because of a lack of central leadership and actual organization, that makes them an easy scapegoat for any kind of hacking. Remember Sony blaming anonymous for hacking PSN? yeah, I call bullshit on that.

That's a bit like Al-Qaeda; even though the movement has its some organized structures, one can say a large part of it exists on The Information Superhighway. Any friggin anarchist today obsessed with terrorism can say he was working for Al-Qaeda, as they recruit their people via the interwebs.

I do wonder how them anons pass information between them. Spreading rumors using net-bots?

[Lelygax]

They are simply anonymous people. that defines the group. Some are bad, some are good, without leaders.

They spread information using social media, like twitter or facebook, its like a socialism.

[A-Yty]

Also, because of a lack of central leadership and actual organization, that makes them an easy scapegoat for any kind of hacking.

..and a convenient excuse for themselves.

[Shiroi Koumori]

They want anarchy.

[A-Yty]

They want anarchy.

Sure, whenever it sounds cool and ominous.

Then again, if there isn't any kind of organized system behind it, of course true anarchists exist among "Anonymous".

[X]

Then again, if there isn't any kind of organized system behind it, of course true anarchists exist among "Anonymous".

You can't really use the term 'true anarchists' because in today's society Anarchy has more then one meaning. Example below;

[Anarchy has more than one definition. Some use the term "anarchy" to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.

Others, including most individuals who self-identify as anarchists, use the term to imply a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level. There are also other forms of anarchy that attempt to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society. Anarchy is also a technical issue of economic science.]

Also true about today's society is that you don't need a whole group of people to commit acts of crime, lawlessness or disorder of any kind. All a person needs is their intelligence and a computer with internet capability. Is this 'Anonymous' a person or group of persons? it's anyone's guess right now.

[A-Yty]

Mostly it's a state of mind. Kind of like mob mentality.

[Mooning Freddy]

Mostly it's a state of mind. Kind of like mob mentality.

Robert Hobbes would disagree with you, and X is quite right. Hobbes defined the fundamental goal of government as creating a set of rules for a community and enforcing them. "Hobbesian anarchy" is a hypothetical situation where there is no government. In that situation, people have no rules or nobody to enforce those rules, thus nobody to protect fundamental rights. This gives way to a "state of nature" where people are constantly fearful for their lives and property since nobody is there to protect them.

Of course such a situation never existed, and could never exist. Even the most primitive tribal societies had certain rules and some sort of patriarchal leadership.  I believe even the most radical anarchists understand the need for at least some form of law and law enforcement.

Good thing we have our dear leader Jorge to protect us from Anonymous.

[A-Yty]

I think you're finding ideology in a place where it doesn't exist.

Edit: that might be because you assumed I was talking about anarchy. I was talking about Anonymous.

[Lelygax]

Okay, why someone -1ed me? I've only answered a question. I simply dont understand this one. Atleast say what I did wrong.

[A-Yty]

I +1'd you. Now I expect someone to counter that with a -1 , since I acknowledged this. Or maybe by acknowledging it, I actually prevented it..

Though I do disagree with what you said. It's nothing like socialism. I'm hoping it's more like an eventually-destined-to-fade-prototype of "hive mind" thinking and doing.

[Lelygax]

+1ed to prevent your post becoming a -1. lol

I said socialism because they help each other in doing something. Sorry if Im talking wrong things about socialism since I dont understand all things about it.

[Mooning Freddy]

Okay, why someone -1ed me? I've only answered a question. I simply dont understand this one. Atleast say what I did wrong.

(anonymous) haters gonna hate.