Anonymous Goes After Marine In Iraqi Civilian Kill

Since every time someone posts something about Anonymous it's usually derogatory about them, I'm posting something that I find pretty awesome.

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/03/10311630-anonymous-goes-after-marine-in-iraqi-civilian-killing-case

I personally think he should be put to death, but that's just me. Doing something like that is inhuman, disgusting, and can never be justified.

Wow that's really cool of anonymous as opposed to some of the other things they do

they finally did something cool instead of acting like immature little kids

I don't think he should be put to death for this, I'm not much for the eye for an eye thing, but it's definitely a good thing that this has been exposed! He should at least be in prison for a long time.

Whistle-blowing in an open society is great, in my opinion. It's a shame Obama has taken such a hard stance on it and tries to stop it at all costs.

Anonymous isn't all bad. They dismantled and dox'd a child porn ring on the Tor network. They ousted HB Gary who was talking with the government over illusions of mass social networking favor of the US. And they were even trying to get information on cartels, and last I read about that, they found some people from the government with ties to drug cartels.

This is from the comment section. Who knows whether or not it has any credibility. Looking now ~

Edit - Just seems like the article left out a lot of important information. Just goes to show how everything is biased.

Edit - After further investigation -- Who am I kidding. I've been drinking.

^If that is really how it went down, how is he to blame for it?

Because of one comment, he is getting blamed for it? That is pretty much the definition of a scapegoat.

Well, to be fair, his comment (i.e. his orders) were to "shoot first and ask questions later."

I certainly can understand the nature of the fog of war and the chaos that occurs, and can empathise that this group of soldiers had just been attacked, but the dereliction of duty charge stems from that action sadly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46116273#.Tx9VGm9tY0k

Yea, what? They didn't open fire on a house from afar, they went in and killed people in their own houses. The dude even said it himself.

That's from another article dealing with the case. The person who wrote that comment didn't even do 5 minutes of research (about as much as I did, clicking 2 different links wooooooooo) and just *** their own response.


Edit: The article I got these quotes from is the same on Schutz used~

As much as I would love to see that piece of human waste strung out in public in some Iraq city, I can't get behind any act that Anonymous does.

I find them to be a bunch of scared little children who are afraid to leave their mothers basements and do some real good. Instead they use scare tactics that do nothing but hurt people, and hardly ever the people they want to humiliate. Until they are willing to be a public group, imo, they are nothing short of terrorist and should be treated as such.

[quote='Lakshmi.Kolvar' pid=1744484]As much as I would love to see that piece of human waste strung out in public in some Iraq city, I can't get behind any act that Anonymous does. I find them to be a bunch of scared little children who are afraid to leave their mothers basements and do some real good. Instead they use scare tactics that do nothing but hurt people, and hardly ever the people they want to humiliate. Until they are willing to be a public group, imo, they are nothing short of terrorist and should be treated as such.[/quote]

k

And here we have a case of someone missing the point.

Get with the times. The informational era is upon us, and the internet is the new frontier. By being anonymous and by exposing the skeletons in the closest, Anonymous has brought a number of things to light and has shown that in huge swarms of numbers, even a bunch of 14 year old kids can send a clear message: you cannot expect to do wrong and not have the world call you out on it.

And terrorists? Don't make me laugh. That's pathetic. If this were three decades ago, you'd have called them communists because you disagreed with them.

No I wouldn't of, Communisim is a beautiful idea on paper, just never works when people try it. I have never been one to think that the whole world should accept our idea of Gov't or we will shove it down their throat on the end of a barrel.

I say they are terrorist because they are. Terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Basically, they say, do as we like or we will show all your secrets off. We know people are guilty all the time, we know they get off with nothing short of a slap on the wrist. This happens every day, its wrong, we know that. It will conutine to happen no matter how many emails they put online.

If they are 14 year old, as your example says, then they hardly understand the politics in WoW. These kids think they will change the world we a PC, but they won't. They will force companies to hire bigger and more expensive tech firms that they will pass on to the consumers. They are children who think they will never die and that they are always right. They need to grow up and move into the real world.

tell that to China who's economy is *** booming.

anonymous aren't terrorists... to imply this notion is ludicrous.

not all 14 year olds are as sheltered as american's 14 year olds.

You can change the world with whatever medium of the age is, like Xueye said, get with the times.

And there are numerous economist who believe without any doubt that China is cooking their books and it will implode on them within the next few years.

If they are so mature and enlightened, then they should live the way they preach. They want an open and honest world, then they should be open and honest. I want their names, all the emails they ever sent, their bank records, every website they ever went to, they criminal records, everything. Until they do this, in my eyes, they are children hurting others from behind a PC to push their views upon
others.

Not sure how old most of you are but I would venture early 20's, but I know that I look back at my late teens early 20's and can't believe I ever thought that way. My political views have taken almost a 180 on most issues. These kids, in 10 years will be working for the same companies they are hacking, trying to improve their security. I wouldn't doubt if some of the older members of Anonymous are already moved on to that.

there's economists who also believe trickle down economics works when it doesn't and there's economists who believe a balanced budget is a must. That's a crock of ***.

Hiding so they can fight for their rights and "beliefs" is no crime, they are practicing what they preach, there's no reason for them to release their personal information (not to mention it defeats the purpose...) as they are doing nothing wrong.

Until you get with the times in my eyes you'll be an old fart who understands nothing.

As a group:

Anonymous has unveiled a large number of abuses in the Church of Scientology in a protest (in real life, too, fancy that!) campaign that lasted almost 2 years. The information dug up and spread by Anonymous allowed for these abuses to reach mainstream media.

In the Mexican drug cartel situation, Anonymous has been one of the only groups to successfully dig up enough valid information to negotiate with a drug cartel. To date, as I'm to recall, Anonymous has been the only group to ever successfully negotiate with the Zetas and get live hostages back.

In the anti-SOPA/PIPA movement, Anonymous was one of many groups that organized an effective campaign that taught people how to contact their representatives and become politically active.

As a concept:

The fact of the matter is that we are in an era where censorship is becoming a real threat, where corrupt politicians are as rampant as ever, and where the everyman grows less and less powerful due to those two. What the concept of Anonymous offers is a way to directly send a message to entities in a relatively nonviolent way: we will cut your profit margins by taking your services down, we will dice your image by revealing the skeletons you tried to bury.

In an age where information is the primary tool, where it's the most powerful and valuable thing, the concept of being anonymous in a group of other anonymous people working to stand against those that do injustices isn't terrorism. I'd go so far as to say that Anonymous is the ultimate libertarian entity. "Stop wrapping your greedy claws around our necks or we'll bite your hand."

And all that in a nonviolent way.

vigilante justice, without the tights. (ok, ok tights optional)

Old fart, that is a good one. Why is there no reason for them to release it? They want to release everyone else's information but keep themselves nice safe behind walls? No, that isn't how the world works. They want to spread their message, whatever they believe it is, then they need be open or be looked at as terrorist and children.

What's odd, every generation has said they will change the world when their generation gets older. That their beliefs will, at that time, will take over when they come to age. Then they grow up. The same people who protested the Vietnam War, supported both Iraq wars. The same people who fought to keep white and black bathrooms separate, now how mixed great/grandchildren they wouldn't give up for the world.

Sorry but there is no real "getting with the times". that only works on people not living in the real world.

they want to release wrong-doers information, not everyone, that's where you're mistaken.

and no that is how the internet world works, and the only people who look at them that way are ignorant fools who don't know any better.

and there's plenty of people who will always fight for their beliefs.

no there is a "getting with the times" as well as actually learn history.

Terrorist. You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Not one bit.

it's funny because by his definition all revolutionaries were terrorists, even the founders of this nation.

so in an ironic sense he's partially right, but it depends how you attribute the word.

Do you understand the full term of nonviolent?

They go after people who have families, while they get the evil and greedy politican/lawyer/ businessman/ whatever, these people have wives and children who are innocent in all of it, they get hurt. The business man then has fewer customers/clients and has to fire people. These people have families to support. They are hurt. The chain can go on and on. Just because you are aren't physically out there swinging, you still hurt someone.

Nonviolent is Ghandi's hunger protest. Standing in the street to stop the tanks from going further. That is nonviolent.

Do we call the Nazis overall good because their medical and technological pushed the world ahead after WWII by leaps and bounds? I don't myself. But under your definition of doing a few good things, well perceived good things, they are overall a good thing? Again no.

the Nazi's did a lot of great things and had a lot of great ideas, however they were encompassed by their horrible horrible things and very bad ideas.

From what I understand of it Germany should have not even started a war, they could have taken over the world economically at the rate things were going.

As for anonymous, their work is overall good and good intentioned, you don't blame the vigilante if a crook's minion loses his job.

Nice Godwin.

Nonviolent: abstaining from the use of violence against other individuals.

So are you saying that boycotts are violent? That protests are violent? Both of those are nonviolent tactics that cause business owners to lose profit and have to fire people, or change their practices in order to win back customers.

All you keep saying is "Well, it doesn't matter if they did bad stuff, those corrupt people have families that suffer, too!".

Yet I can think of no single time that Anonymous has said "Person-X did something bad, and Person-Y is their father, so let's release all of Person-Y's dirty secrets."

No, time and time again, it's been "Person-X has done something bad. Let's show his constituents what he's done and bring to light the muck he's brought up." And yes, Person-X's family may suffer in image, there may be stress in the household, but it doesn't change the fact that all that ***happened because Person-X did something horrific.

Don't hurt yourself jumping off that high horse. I mean, I know you're aiming for a mattress, but it's an awfully high jump.

Everyone has families dude that's like saying a cop shouldn't go arrest a criminal because it'll hurt that criminals family in either reputation or finance don't want those around you suffering :P then don't do ***that'll hurt them pretty simple either way to get back onto topic I don't agree that the soldier got off quite easy I understand he's fighting for his country and all but killing unarmed civis is pretty bad I wouldn't want the army to come to a small town slaughter innocent people and be like you know what you did a no no but its ok i'll just lower your pay bro kthxbye and I think no one should like that <--- have fun reading btw stopped using proper grammar since I graduated looks more pro that way

I think the guy just has issues with vigilante justice.

you can't usually reason with that...

Is his argument, don't expose when people are breaking the law so that their families aren't affected?

If you don't want you families affected, then don't break the *** law.

The only person who gets their families dragged into it are the ones doing wrong ***.

I would be against Anonymous if they said "Senator Something did something bad! Let's bully his daughter till she commits suicide to hurt him!"

Or "Let's reveal her SSN and steal her identity!"

But they don't operate like that, at all, so... idk wtf his problem is.

what if his/her daughter's hot, can they just expose her then (sorry, couldn't resist)