Red Mosquito

Hacker collective Anonymous has vowed to inflict a ‘major cyber attack’ on ISIS following the terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday 13th that have so far claimed 129 lives.

A video posted to YouTube in French sees Anonymous warming the Islamic State that: “We will launch the biggest operation ever against you.”

Anonymous also tweeted a statement reading: “Make no mistake: #Anonymous is at war with #Daesh. We won’t stop opposing #Islamic State. We’re also better hackers. #OpIsis”.

Daesh is the term that most Arab states and some European governments use to refer to Isis as it is an Arabic acronym of the same words that make up I.S.I.S (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) in English.

The word can also reportedly be translated as a derogatory term and its use is strongly opposed by ISIS.

The global hacker collective has revealed that ‘#OpParis’ will be an ‘intelligence gathering and takedown operation comprised of 2 main phases’.

While phase 1 of the attack involves information gathering, phase 2 focuses on publishing the information and attempting to take down as many ISIS accounts as possible.

In an online statement, Anonymous said:

“The purpose of this Op is to identify and report supporters of the atrocious November 13th 2015 Paris attacks in an effort to assist finding those responsible, demonstrating that we do not tolerate such atrocities and gather information that could help prevent further attacks in the future”.

This is not the first time that the group has targeted ISIS. Confirming this in a tweet, Anonymous said:

“Just to be clear: #Anonymous hasn’t just declared war on #IslamicState, we’ve been at war for quite some time already”.

"We are upping our game, you will now be hit by major cyber attacks,” the hackers told ISIS in the new warning.

A number of coordinated attacks carried out by seven terrorists in Paris on 13 November have so far claimed 129 lives, leaving 352 wounded, many of whom are critically injured.

Anonymous also urged people not to overlook the victims of similar attacks in Beirut and Kenya.

The hacker group recently published a list of alleged Ku Klux Klan members.

Simple Torture wrote:

stip wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:I'm not a fan of this "very tiny percentage" argument when discussing Islamic extremist. It's both incorrect and not conducive to furthering the discussion. In many ways, it's as destructive as rednecks shouting, "Kill 'em All!"

Soooooo agreed. That kind of PC refusal to acknowledge the deeply troubling issues inherent in Islam is stifling discourse that needs happen. Claiming the problems are simply political is delusional.

And here's there problem in a nutshell, LV. In your response there was a strong implication that all Muslims are extremists, or the majority, etc. Which of course is going to trigger the tiny percentage response.

I'm not so sure that's implied in LV's response. There are millions and millions of Muslims in the world that support theocracies, the subjugation of women, harsh treatment for homosexuals, and so on and so forth, and yet are not considered extremists or radicals (the same could be said, of course, for most other religions as well). I think LV is just suggesting that when you purport any absolute theology as "the truth," you're creating an environment in which extremists can flourish. Am I wrong, LV?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:The difference I always saw when I was deployed was not the number of extremists, but the number of people who were either too scared to speak out or just were tolerant enough with extremist views to not speak out against them. That kind of environment is in the least enabling.

stip wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

stip wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:I'm not a fan of this "very tiny percentage" argument when discussing Islamic extremist. It's both incorrect and not conducive to furthering the discussion. In many ways, it's as destructive as rednecks shouting, "Kill 'em All!"

Soooooo agreed. That kind of PC refusal to acknowledge the deeply troubling issues inherent in Islam is stifling discourse that needs happen. Claiming the problems are simply political is delusional.

And here's there problem in a nutshell, LV. In your response there was a strong implication that all Muslims are extremists, or the majority, etc. Which of course is going to trigger the tiny percentage response.

I'm not so sure that's implied in LV's response. There are millions and millions of Muslims in the world that support theocracies, the subjugation of women, harsh treatment for homosexuals, and so on and so forth, and yet are not considered extremists or radicals (the same could be said, of course, for most other religions as well). I think LV is just suggesting that when you purport any absolute theology as "the truth," you're creating an environment in which extremists can flourish. Am I wrong, LV?

if LV is making a general point about all religious fundamentalism, and just happens to be talking about Muslims at this point in time that's useful context.

It's sometimes hard to separate out these conversations from the larger context in which they take place, and even if LV is correct, for most people who say similar things the common usage refers to islam only, not religious fundamentalism in general.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

stip wrote:Just to provide a slightly less glib response.

I am not a pacifist. Sometimes violence and war is necessary to secure the safety and protection of innocent people. But we should never loose sight of the fact that organized state sanctioned violence leads to the murder of innocent people no less (and frequently much much more) than terrorism. Saying that this was an unintended consequence while knowing full well it is a probable consequence hardly seems to me to be sufficient to absolve us of moral responsibility. The response to the deaths of 150 innocent people is likely to kill 10 times that number of innocent people. That we didn't start it (though that's debatable) does not level the moral scale.

I am very much against any reasoning that enables us to diminish to ourselves the full horrific impact of what we authorize. If we were forced to confront the consequences of our actions, and bear responsibility for them, we would (I believe) be less likely to use violence in the first place--to the point that it really becomes an object of super last resort, rather than convenience, politics, power, and business.

Can you please share what your response would be?

stip wrote: My response to the attacks. I'm not sure. I'm glad I don't have to formulate one. It's much easier to be a critic than to have to formulate policy.

I would probably prioritize working with Iran, Russia, and other regional powers to help isolate ISIS and apply economic pressure on Syria to try and create some sort of power sharing government, increase aid to help stabilize surrounding communities, start imposing economic pain on US allies who end up funding these groups, and continue to try and nurture regional partners.

But what I would do, most of all, is accept that there is not a clean, easy, or quick solution to this problem, and abandon the idea that it is something I can just come in and solve. this is naive, narcissistic, and dangerous. this will take a long time, and involves undoing years and years of terrible policy, much of which we've helped author.

stip wrote:My response to the attacks. I'm not sure. I'm glad I don't have to formulate one. It's much easier to be a critic than to have to formulate policy.

I would probably prioritize working with Iran, Russia, and other regional powers to help isolate ISIS and apply economic pressure on Syria to try and create some sort of power sharing government, increase aid to help stabilize surrounding communities, start imposing economic pain on US allies who end up funding these groups, and continue to try and nurture regional partners.

But what I would do, most of all, is accept that there is not a clean, easy, or quick solution to this problem, and abandon the idea that it is something I can just come in and solve. this is naive, narcissistic, and dangerous. this will take a long time, and involves undoing years and years of terrible policy, much of which we've helped author.

Simple Torture wrote:

stip wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

stip wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:I'm not a fan of this "very tiny percentage" argument when discussing Islamic extremist. It's both incorrect and not conducive to furthering the discussion. In many ways, it's as destructive as rednecks shouting, "Kill 'em All!"

Soooooo agreed. That kind of PC refusal to acknowledge the deeply troubling issues inherent in Islam is stifling discourse that needs happen. Claiming the problems are simply political is delusional.

And here's there problem in a nutshell, LV. In your response there was a strong implication that all Muslims are extremists, or the majority, etc. Which of course is going to trigger the tiny percentage response.

I'm not so sure that's implied in LV's response. There are millions and millions of Muslims in the world that support theocracies, the subjugation of women, harsh treatment for homosexuals, and so on and so forth, and yet are not considered extremists or radicals (the same could be said, of course, for most other religions as well). I think LV is just suggesting that when you purport any absolute theology as "the truth," you're creating an environment in which extremists can flourish. Am I wrong, LV?

if LV is making a general point about all religious fundamentalism, and just happens to be talking about Muslims at this point in time that's useful context.

It's sometimes hard to separate out these conversations from the larger context in which they take place, and even if LV is correct, for most people who say similar things the common usage refers to islam only, not religious fundamentalism in general.

I feel like I've seen LV comment on Christian fundamentalists enough to think that he's making a broader statement. But I do agree that most people turn Muslims into an "other" and pretend that the same rules don't apply (such as the pols saying the US should take in only Christians and not Muslims from Syria, as if there has never been a Christian terrorist).

Green Habit wrote:

stip wrote:My response to the attacks. I'm not sure. I'm glad I don't have to formulate one. It's much easier to be a critic than to have to formulate policy.

I would probably prioritize working with Iran, Russia, and other regional powers to help isolate ISIS and apply economic pressure on Syria to try and create some sort of power sharing government, increase aid to help stabilize surrounding communities, start imposing economic pain on US allies who end up funding these groups, and continue to try and nurture regional partners.

But what I would do, most of all, is accept that there is not a clean, easy, or quick solution to this problem, and abandon the idea that it is something I can just come in and solve. this is naive, narcissistic, and dangerous. this will take a long time, and involves undoing years and years of terrible policy, much of which we've helped author.

It sucks that this answer is both very correct and very politically unsatisfying.

stip wrote:and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

Green Habit wrote:

stip wrote:and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Capitalism and western culture to a lesser degree is also ruthless and destructive as Islamic extremists. Just because it leaves its victims and losers alive to forever suffer their debt/unemployment doesn't make it any better.

oh boy

dime, do I REALLY need to point out why this is a ridiculously absurd false equivalency? As a gay man living a free life, you of all people should understand that the value systems in place are anything but equal. People can debate the ramifications of social conditioning in western/capitalist culture and all, but let's not pretend these are the same thing.

dimejinky99 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Capitalism and western culture to a lesser degree is also ruthless and destructive as Islamic extremists. Just because it leaves its victims and losers alive to forever suffer their debt/unemployment doesn't make it any better.

oh boy

dime, do I REALLY need to point out why this is a ridiculously absurd false equivalency? As a gay man living a free life, you of all people should understand that the value systems in place are anything but equal. People can debate the ramifications of social conditioning in western/capitalist culture and all, but let's not pretend these are the same thing.

Apples and oranges. I didn't shoot anyone for gay rights. Nor would I.

If my country was still being crushed by Britain, for a few decades just to further their oil grab and kill off our opposition to it, I'd go take the fight to them too.

You would too if it was your country or people being castigated to suit an agenda that justifies that. You can only attack someone for so long before they fight back. And this is that.

stip wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

stip wrote:and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

stip wrote:and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

At this point any response at all is going to feed into set narratives (which many western liberals are happy to stoke, see above), but by all means, lets continue to spend decades placing sanctions and launching "measured" bomb strikes on a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

Spoiler: show

turned2black wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

stip wrote:and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

At this point any response at all is going to feed into set narratives (which many western liberals are happy to stoke, see above), but by all means, lets continue to spend decades placing sanctions and launching "measured" bomb strikes on a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

Come on burt, it's such a "tiny percentage" of people who hold those views on women and homosexuals.

Spoiler: show