×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anonymous Hacks Tunisian Islamist Sites

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the keeps-on-ticking dept.

Censorship 101

eldavojohn writes "The hacktivist group Anonymous has claimed another victim by taking down Islamist sites in Tunisia. Similar to an earlier attack on Turkish government sites, #optunisia has resulted in several government blogs and sites being replaced with 'Payback is a b****, isn't it?' The message lists censorship as the motivation behind this activity. The AFP is reporting that this is also in response to the reintroduction of Salafist laws and the caliphate. An additional Anonymous message read, 'We are not against religion, we are Muslims, but we are defending freedom in our country.' Censorship continues wholesale in Tunisia."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

101 comments

Safe target? (3, Interesting)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330071)

I wonder if they're hacking these guys because they basically won't have any ability to retaliate, as opposed to the U.S. Government or the drug cartels in Mexico.

Re:Safe target? (4, Interesting)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330121)

Note, I'm not saying that the hack without merit since it is in favor of free speech, but rather if that's the reason they're avoiding the big dogs, ever since the recent sting.

Re:Safe target? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39332477)

How do you know it's even the same person/people doing this hack vs. any other anonymous hack? If they are "avoiding the big dogs", who are "they"? The leaders of anonymous who may or may not exist? If someone writes graffiti on a Bank of America building signed "anonymous" are you going to say it looks like they decided to go after the banks? It sounds like you're trying to make sense of what could be basically random actions by diverse non-connected groups of individuals. Maybe some are 4-channers, maybe some are bored college comp-sci students, maybe some are frustrated employees of various organizations. Anyone can be anonymous.

Re:Safe target? (0, Offtopic)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330331)

Muslims are always the safe and easy target for criticism, yet in this case there may be a little more to this than choosing a target solely on the basis of safety.

Re:Safe target? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39335961)

Muslims are always the safe and easy target for criticism, yet in this case there may be a little more to this than choosing a target solely on the basis of safety.

Mods, try reading the story. This is not "offtopic", it is in fact completely on-topic.

Re:Safe target? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39330373)

Anonymous isn't run by a handful of people who make decisions like that. Half the time Anonymous is fighting against Anonymous. How many times does this have to be explained?

Re:Safe target? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39335155)

Oh, I don't know, enough times for people to start believing it I suppose?

I think after the Lulzsec busts we all have a pretty good idea of what "Anonymous" is. "We are legion?" Not quite. More like "we are a handful of underachievers with misguided political goals, many of us unemployed, and we leave enough breadcrumbs behind for any federal agent to find us despite our rhetoric." In fact in the case of Sabu I would think "we are traitors to our own kind" would have been more appropriate. None of the Amazon-ordered Fawkes masks in the word are going to cover up that shame. On the plus side they can coat the insides of the masks with Proactiv and work on that unsightly acne.

Re:Safe target? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330379)

There are more than enough bad guys out there that CAN'T reach you, I'd rather have them pestering "safe targets" for a while rather than them going after the bigger fish, and getting killed or deported.

I also thought the whole thing with "Targeting the Zetas" was probably just "for the lulz," in the first place. I mean, it's a pretty low-tech operation. I wasn't quite clear how Anonymous would have gotten their hands on identities of corrupt officials working with the zetas, proof of their corruption, identities of zetas members (who are not exactly supervillian secret identities anyway), or how they would interfere via internet with the zetas ability to make meth in a bathtub and drive it into the US.

The media certainly was trolled hard. Hopefully a few mexican mafia members were also trolled. But I think the whole drug cartel thing was pretty safe to begin with, compared to interfering with the US government.

Re:Safe target? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331699)

It is because at some time there were people spreading messages about what anonymous would or wouldn't do trying to incite people with knowhow to do it. Later on those gave up and anonymous probably took a little better control over their propaganda arm. I hope those ass wipe new fags figured out that if they wanted something to be done they had to organize and do it themselves, of course promoting ones project is necessary.

I'm sure those anonymous gangs will sooner or later develop a structure. A manual will hopefully soon be out.

Re:Safe target? (2)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331863)

There are more than enough bad guys out there that CAN'T reach you, I'd rather have them pestering "safe targets" for a while rather than them going after the bigger fish, and getting killed or deported.

You have seen what many Muslim people do when they are upset/mad/in a bad mood, right?

Re:Safe target? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39334443)

You have seen what many Muslim people do when they are upset/mad/in a bad mood, right?

The Tunsinian fundamentalist Muslims? No... nope. Haven't the foggiest what they're like when they're mad, living as I do in the US.

You do bring up a good point: Anonymous members should avoid Tunsinia. Though, everyone else should too.

Re:Safe target? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39335995)

The Tunsinian fundamentalist Muslims? No... nope. Haven't the foggiest what they're like when they're mad, living as I do in the US.

Well then I have good news! You can find out things about stuff happening in other places using this magical thing called a "television" or even a computer attached to the internet! Who would have ever thought you could just log onto the Al Jazeera English site, BBC, and any other news site on the planet in any region you may be interested in? Shocking, I know.
Who knows, you might even have the "mad skillz" to use Google to locate additional sources of information such as books, documentaries, police and government reports, reports from charitable and human rights organizations, universities, and more.

Re:Safe target? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39343211)

Very clever. My point is that Tunsinian muslims aren't going to do anything to Anonymous. They'll get mad and blame Israel, but Anonymous is beyond the reach of their beheading tools.

Re:Safe target? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39332445)

I also thought the whole thing with "Targeting the Zetas" was probably just "for the lulz," in the first place.

That's the fallback excuse for when they fail...'it was just for the lulz'

Re:Safe target? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39330651)

Never underestimate what followers of Muhammad the pedophile are capable of!

Re:Safe target? (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337115)

Because somehow drug cartels in Mexico are heavily involved in Tunisian politics? Did you even bother reading the fucking summary, is that seriously too much to fucking ask anymore?

First problem (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39330105)

We are not against religion...

There's your first problem right there.

Re:First problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39330165)

It isn't, and you don't believe that it is.

Re:First problem (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330167)

Freedom of religion is what leaves you free to have no religion.

Re:First problem (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331335)

Actually, it's a lack of prohibition of having no religion that allows you to have no religion.

Re:First problem (1)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336141)

Actually, it's a lack of prohibition of having no religion that allows you to have no religion.

You are seldom, if ever, going to have that unless the state has some guarantee of religious freedom.

Re:First problem (2)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332175)

Freedom of religion is what leaves you free to have no religion.

Freedom from religion would be better. That way, you could have your religion (in your basement, in the dark (as it should be - you alone comuning with your sky fairy)), and nobody would bother persecuting you for it. Everyone wins.

Re:First problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336125)

I recognize your atheism as a legitimate religious belief, and fully support your right to "the free exercise thereof".

Re:First problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336231)

That way, you could have your religion (in your basement, in the dark (as it should be - you alone comuning with your sky fairy)), and nobody would bother persecuting you for it. Everyone wins.

Oh really? But isn't communicating with sky fairies sign of madness and people who do that should get a mental treatment? Why not put a camera in every basement - that's the only way to find all the people who need to be cured, and to get rid of the terrible disease known as religion once and for all!

Re:First problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39338969)

Incorrect. Communicating with Sky Fairies is only psychotic behavior when they are not referred to as your God. It is all ok, as long as you say they are your God. Otherwise, you are just some batshit, nut job talking to someone who is not there.

That is the difference between Religion and Psychosis.

Re:First problem (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336237)

Freedom of religion is what leaves you free to have no religion.

Freedom from religion would be better. That way, you could have your religion (in your basement, in the dark (as it should be - you alone comuning with your sky fairy)), and nobody would bother persecuting you for it. Everyone wins.

So you would support some crazy KKK person having freedom from dining with black people? No? You are free to practice your religious belief that you have no religion in your mother's basement if you wish but that freedom does not mean that you get to dictate whether other people are allowed to practice their faith in public. If you want to be "free" from interacting with religious people then stop trolling in stories like this one and stay in your basement dwelling. It is up to you to remove yourself from the equation. Alternatively, you can show some modicum of "tolerance" and tolerate those who think differently than you do. That is the price you have to pay to live in a free society.

Re:First problem (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39338377)

So you would support some crazy KKK person having freedom from dining with black people?

I have no problem with that. If the KKK person sees "coloreds" in the restaurant, he doesn't have to eat there.

If you want to be "free" from interacting with religious people ...

I said no such thing. I have no problem with religious people.

Alternatively, you can show some modicum of "tolerance" and tolerate those who think differently than you do.

I think we've shown toleration for religion for far too long. The death toll long ago hit the level of genocide on all sides, and it doesn't appear to be slowing down at all. Read a newspaper.

When's Iran going to attack Israel, or vice versa? Or when's Kashmir going to blow up again? Or Chechins hijack and crash another Russian plane? Or China pull out another Pogrom against the Falun Gong? Or Indonesia ...

Re:First problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39332319)

You need to rethink the logic in that statement...

Re:First problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39339395)

And freedom *FROM* religion is what allows you freedom *OF* religion. You can not possibly have freedom *of* your own wack job religion unless you are *free from* the next guy's wack job religion.

Paybill will be a bitch (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39330175)

When the radical Muslims pay the hackers back by kicking their ass.

Re:Paybill will be a bitch (1, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330281)

The FBI has enough trouble finding random anons, I don't think they need to worry about any religious nutjobs that can only threaten to backtrace them and report them to the cyber police.

Re:Paybill will be a bitch (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39330657)

The FBI has enough trouble finding random anons, I don't think they need to worry about any religious nutjobs that can only threaten to backtrace them and report them to the cyber police.

The FBI, despite the raving of the tinfoil hat crowd, has some manner of responsibility to NOT target and kill random US citizens. Religious nutjobs don't have such irritating restrictions.

Note I did not say what specific religion or belief system these nutjobs are.

Re:Paybill will be a bitch (1)

airdweller (1816958) | more than 2 years ago | (#39353327)

The religious nutjobs won't even bother with backtracing anything - they'll just round up and stone to death everyone who is remotely computer-literate.

Pretty random attacks these days (2, Insightful)

Lucas123 (935744) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330327)

Anonymous seems to just have its fingers in the wind these days, shifting its sites all over the placewith no real direction or purpose. I mean, they even took down the Boston Police Department's website because the city forced the Occupy Wall Street wackos out of Dewey Square after letting them squat there for months.

Re:Pretty random attacks these days (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330393)

Anonymous seems to just have its fingers in the wind these days, shifting its sites all over the placewith no real direction or purpose.

Who said they have any real direction or purpose? It's a big amorphous group of whoever wants to participate in whatever popular idea is floating around at the time, they don't have any long-term plan.

Re:Pretty random attacks these days (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331479)

This. One person saying they are the spokesperson for anon would be like me standing up and saying I speak for all of America. Anon's own biggest enemy is anon and always will be. It is the embodiment of chaos and randomness.

Re:Pretty random attacks these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39335577)

Your biggest enemy is always yourself, whether or not you claim anonymity.

Re:Pretty random attacks these days (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336715)

No shit, that's because anonymous isn't one centralised group with a single purpose but a group of many with many purposes.

Not against religion? (3, Interesting)

ZeRu (1486391) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330351)

So, when Anonymous hacked Vatican's site, they were against religion, but now they say they are not? I guess they need to take a more cautious approach when they know tomorrow could be thousands of angry people on the street screaming for their beheading.

Re:Not against religion? (3, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330439)

Way to over-simplify and misinterpret:

https://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/anonymous-hacks-vatican-website/10567 [zdnet.com]

They don't seem to like Scientology either.

Re:Not against religion? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331215)

Scientology isn't a recognized religion in most places. It's a cult at best, and a criminal organization otherwise.

Re:Not against religion? (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331355)

Scientology isn't a recognized religion in most places. It's a cult at best, and a criminal organization otherwise.

I still haven't understood the reason for distinguishing between cult religions and so-called "non-cult religions". All of them seem disturbingly alike to me.

Re:Not against religion? (1)

krept (697623) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331423)

Scientology is tax exempt. The IRS deciding that they're a religion is reason enough. Whether we like it or not.

Re:Not against religion? (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331537)

That's easy, any religion that I don't agree with is a cult. Of course since I don't agree with any religions you can see where that will go however YMMV.

Re:Not against religion? (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331933)

To me, the difference between a religion and a cult is first the spelling. The second being acceptance. Once a certain number of people 'accept' a cult it changes to religion.

Re:Not against religion? (1)

airdweller (1816958) | more than 2 years ago | (#39353405)

There's also the issues of internal control and charity. Scientology is totalitarian. It never bothers with charity. Established religions do. So I'd call it a cult.

Re:Not against religion? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332967)

A religion is a cult that's old enough that nobody can remember what blunders its founders made.

Re:Not against religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336905)

Scientology isn't a recognized religion in most places. It's a cult at best, and a criminal organization otherwise.

I still haven't understood the reason for distinguishing between cult religions and so-called "non-cult religions". All of them seem disturbingly alike to me.

Your anti-religion GNU atheism is also a cult.

Re:Not against religion? (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337545)

It's a continuum. Basically the more control the religous authorities try to exert over what the adherents think and do, the more it moves towards the cult end of the scale. People that want to categorise things one way or the other draw their own arbitrary line at some point on the continuum.

Re:Not against religion? (3, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330599)

Anonymous is anonymous. It's a movement without any specific ideology behind their motives. There is no unity on anything they do. Accept for one. Anonymous can rest at ease that whatever actions they perform can happen safely and securely behind a wall of anonymity.

As an outsider looking looking to group them to an ideology (false premise), you'll just end up confused viewing them as schizophrenic. Don't do that. It's the wrong prism by which to view them.

Re:Not against religion? (1)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331195)

I'd argue that with that kind of classification it can hardly be called a "movement". Viewed from the outside they don't look schizophrenic, rather it looks like anyone who wants to stir up some trouble can just claim to be from Anonymous and thus get extra media attention towards what has been done. Since there is no common ground or movement, it's not possible to say that you're sympathetic to the cause either because the question would then become "what cause?".

Re:Not against religion? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331281)

There is a cause and there is a movement. To simply have a safe venue by which to vent anger and frustration without reprisal. The members that make up "anonymous" are from all walks of life, country, religion, race, and culture. You name it. A bit cowardly if you ask me. But there you go.

Re:Not against religion? (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332607)

There is a cause and there is a movement.

Well he asked the question, 'what cause?'
And what definition of a 'movement' do they fit?

To simply have a safe venue by which to vent anger and frustration without reprisal.

But there has been reprisal, in case you missed it there have been many arrests and even a case where one member turned into an FBI informer.

The members that make up "anonymous" are from all walks of life, country, religion, race, and culture. You name it.

Hang on, you were saying they were anonymous, now you profess to know they come from all walks of life, country, religion, race and culture. How can you possibly know that?

Re:Not against religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39332569)

There is no unity on anything they do. Accept for one. Anonymous can rest at ease that whatever actions they perform can happen safely and securely behind a wall of anonymity.

If there were any truth to that you wouldn't have guys like sabu getting caught, working as an FBI informant and ratting out other evidently-not-anonymous members of Anonymous.

It's a movement without any specific ideology behind their motives.

Then it's not a 'movement'.

Re:Not against religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39338835)

So for people who don't agree with Anonymous motives, they can skip looking for people and just wage a war against anonymity.

I think Anonymous actions are going to hurt us all in the long run. Maybe this is what things like SOPA are really for. To purge anonymity.

Re:Not against religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39351375)

Then stop calling it a movement.

Re:Not against religion? (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330727)

It sounds like the people behind this particular attack against the Tunisian government are Tunisian citizens, and therefore Muslim. The group behind the Vatican attacks were probably Western in residency. Remember, Anonymous is like al-Qaeda: anyone can claim the name, as both are an idea more than an actual organization. And to address this particular case, this was always the worry that the Arab Spring would bring out Islamist governments to replace authoritarian, dictatorial, regimes. However, we were still right to support these revolutions because we have always claimed that we promote self determination, and these revolts were popular revolts and gave the people the opportunity for self determination. The problem is that in several cases-Tunisia and Egypt for example-the movement was, if not co-opted, then opened up the opportunity for more restrictive governments to form due to the current popularity of restrictive, radicalized Islam as a response to the encroachment of Western culture.

Re:Not against religion? (2)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#39333113)

There are two points to consider with the whole Arab Spring Islamist thing:

1) The Islamist groups were often the only form of resistance against an unpopular dictator. People joining or supporting those groups weren't necessarily hardcore Islamists. Consider that the Islamist groups that fought against Gadaffi turned out to be our allies, and openly called for democratic elections. Also consider the Polish uprisings against Communism - the uprisings had many religious overtones (martyrdom, use of the Christian cross etc.) and many of the protests were overtly religious, and the protesters used the church to organise, but in the end they did this because the church was already a focal point in people's lives, one that people could rally around as a community. They didn't actually want a hardline religious society. This may also be the case with the Arab Spring.

2) The Islamist political groups that have been elected in these kind of situations in the past tend not to fare so well in future elections. The basic problem is that once they are in power people discover that the Islamist politicians are much like politicians everywhere, i.e. entirely fallable and often hypocritical. In the end, linking religion to a political group not only reduces respect for the group, but also for the religion as a whole.

Re:Not against religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331185)

Who's head exactly are we talking about here?

-Anonymous

Not against Jewish sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331439)

Not against Jewish sites?

When was the last time they hacked a Jewish website?

Re:Not against Jewish sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39332029)

Does Bank of America count? Ziiiiiiinnnngggg!

Re:Not against religion? (1)

gambino21 (809810) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332567)

So, when Anonymous hacked Vatican's site, they were against religion, but now they say they are not?

Who are "they"? How do you know it's the same person/people? Do you know some of the members of anonymous personally? If so, please contact the FBI immediately for processing.

Re:Not against religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336053)

Who are "they"? How do you know it's the same person/people?

Look up the word "forensics".

Re:Not against religion? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336723)

You're struggling to understand what anonymous is.

So if you can't grasp the concept of what anonymous is, each time you read it in relation to a story like this, mentally replace it with "A group of hackers".

Things will start making sense then.

Anonymous isn't one person or group, it's many groups sharing the same name. Your argument doesn't make sense, it's like seeing a green car and saying "What the hell? I thought all cars were white, why is this one different?" - there are many different colours of car, but they're still cars. Just like there are many different groups of hackers under anonymous, but they still identify with anonymous.

Retaliation against Anonymous? (2)

Kylon99 (2430624) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330681)

This counter tactic won't work for the Islamist sites that need to be populist, but it will work for the ones who have enough men, guns and money to seize power and control through fear, intimidation or murder.

Basically, if you attack them, they can simply murder some innocent person related to you. Say, find someone who studies computers and whether you declare this 'computer' thing an evil or not, simply murder them and publicize that they died in response to the attack. They would just be interested in creating a chilling effect, not in being accurate. This goes for any other group looking to dominate with fear, such as gangs, etc., but it depends on the amount of violence they control.

I'm just looking at this from a sociology point of view. The problem I see with this is the other side will need to be just as callous about the victims caught in the middle of the war in order to continue. Oh well. Change is always very tough. I hope things won't spiral out of control, but I wouldn't put my life on it.

When you finally understand where all religions... (0)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330685)

....originated from, then you will also see the intentional distortions fabricated for personal gain at the expense of many others.

All religions are going to fall in exposure of their origins. Even the Atheist and Agnostic are in for a surprise.

Re:When you finally understand where all religions (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39330825)

You DO know "agnostic" and "atheist" are orthogonal right? All religions, as well as atheism, are belief claims, while a claim of agnosticism simply means "I do not put the same kind of confidence in this belief as I would in something derived deductively from prior principles." For example, an agnostic atheist says "I have no particular God belief, but this does not mean there never is, was, or will be a God or Gods in any place, time, or meaning."

Re:When you finally understand where all religions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331701)

Just like people who dont believe in the invisible pink unicorn. Thats a belief system to!

What is Anonymous acheiving? (1)

StoutFiles (2471680) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330831)

When they hack a company/organization, that group is more resolved than ever to keep doing what they're doing, except now with improved net security. They are strengthening the resolve and defenses of who they claim to hate!

You serious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39330867)

I would be more impressed if they ever did more than bring down a site that was more than a government poster.

But for Anonymous (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39330973)

So the 'Arab Spring' is getting all theocratic. Lovely. Mufties and imams subjugating billions of women and $150/bbl gas.

Can we please have our imperialist puppet dictators back now? These people can't govern themselves properly. Thanks so much.

But for Anonymous we'd have had ovens full of infidels before the MSM had reason to mention any of this.

Re:But for Anonymous (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336981)

So the 'Arab Spring' is getting all theocratic.

I have family living in one of those countries (Morocco), and all of them saw it coming, and constantly said so, long before Ben Ali fled Tunisia. The problem with the "Arabellion" was that it came too early, in the midst of a huge wave of Islamism that has been sweeping the region since at least the 1990ies and that is still virulent and highly contagious today. Before this, there were already democratization tendencies in place and going along nicely, albeit slowly. But now, the modernists have lost before they even had a chance, and the western governments now militarily supporting Islamist forces and regimes (see Libya, and now Syria as well) is yet another stab in the back of secular-minded people of those countries. It's a real tragedy what's going on, and it's based on a deeply flawed understanding of the region's people's mentality and reality. It's also based on blindly trusting the Saudis (fundamentalist wahhabis), Qataris (spreading wahhabism like wildfire through the arabic channel of Al Jazeera) and the Turks (they too turned islamists under Erdogan) on how to deal with the Middle East and North Africa. If at all, those three are the worst possible advisers at the moment, yet western governments listen to them.

As to Anonymous, that's child's play. It's not their hacking that's going to change the real world (as much as I would have hoped it would)... especially not this particular world.

Re:But for Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39342811)

But for stupid Western imperialists all would be well in turban-ville. Same excuse for how many centuries?

Don't care. Haven't cared in 30 years. Bunch of tribes with too much oil money and too much religion. Best to let western educated dictators corral the lot. Let Iran go a few decades sans adult supervision and now the imams have nukes...

Oh yay! (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331327)

Because nothing says "Fight the power" like hacking a website in Outer Buttfuckistan.
Especially when the Outer Buttfuckistani government is going to hush the incident up locally.
And isn't likely to raid your house like they do when you script-kiddie domestically.

WOO!
BIG BRASS BALLS BABY!

Pardon my disgust.

Re:Oh yay! (1)

jbwolfe (241413) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332451)

I'd prefer they hacked rather than not, and I think we can all agree "the internets" do indeed have "fight the power" power. Will this hack change anything? Maybe not but it costs little except the effort and inaction is ineffective...

Yea boy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331477)

That showed em!

spitoooie ----- cling!

News posted by Christianists or Republics? (1)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331799)

Islamist. It's not a real word, stop using it please.

Re:News posted by Christianists or Republics? (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332275)

Islamist [thefreedictionary.com]
Islamism [wikipedia.org]
islamist [reference.com]

While it is highly charged, and there may be some disagreement about the precise definition of the term, it most certainly is a word. You're free to dislike its usage all you like, but that won't change the fact that it is a word.

Re:News posted by Christianists or Republics? (1)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39343979)

it most certainly is a word.

Santorum [spreadingsantorum.com] has a "definition" too...doesn't mean it's a valid one.

You can defend it's usage all you like, but that wont change the fact that Islamist is a pejorative invented by non-Muslims to disparage Muslims, same as "Democrat Party" is used by Republicans to disparage their political opponents. You can find lots of references [wikipedia.org] for that, too.

"Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party.[1] The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.

Re:News posted by Christianists or Republics? (1)

jbwolfe (241413) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332337)

Regardless of how you feel about that word, or any word for that matter, your opinions are meaningless on their own. Any word can emerge as a neologism and as for the term "Islamist", it appears in the Oxford English Dictionary and is used commonly enough that nobody is going to "stop using it please." Perhaps you are transferring your animosity toward the group mentioned with the term itself. I can understand that...

Re:News posted by Christianists or Republics? (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332729)

Islamist. It's not a real word, stop using it please.

(0) kiak /home/keeling_ dict islamist
1 definition found

From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:

    Islamist
            n 1: a scholar who [is] knowledgeable in Islamic studies
            2: an orthodox Muslim

Re:News posted by Christianists or Republics? (1)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39343865)

1 definition found

You can also find definitions for "Santorum", when Googled. Doesn't mean that it's a valid term. "Islamist" is a pejorative used by non-Muslims to disparage Muslims, same as how "Democrat Party" is used by Republicans.

Re:News posted by Christianists or Republics? (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39344425)

"Islamist" is a pejorative used by non-Muslims to disparage Muslims,

You're working from a bad dictionary. Neither of the definitions I quoted are disparaging.

Re:News posted by Christianists or Republics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39332831)

Damn those Republics!

How tough is this to do? (1)

QuincyDurant (943157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332249)

The guy they caught in NYC had a ninth-grade education, and he was LulzSec's chief-rooter-in-charge.

Since this site is for nerds, how about a nerdish description from someone of what exactly it means to "take down" a website in this way?

Politics and religion I'm pretty well up on, but I'd like to know more about the technology behind these well-publicized, probably over-publicized, attacks.

Again, not impressed (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332339)

This is just a prank.

So they hacked the website of a bunch of illiterate sheep-herders. Big deal.

When they do something *really* meaningful, like bringing down a corrupt bank, or a mass weapon manufacturer, I will be impressed.

Caliphate? (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 2 years ago | (#39333415)

Tunisia has a caliphate? Since when did they organize a massive worldwide shura and elect a new Amir-ul-Mumineen? I must have missed the invitation.

What an odd accusation for Anonymous to make. The Muslim world hasn't had a caliph since 1924.

Re:Caliphate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39334301)

Tunisia has a caliphate? Since when did they organize a massive worldwide shura and elect a new Amir-ul-Mumineen? I must have missed the invitation.

1) The people whose websites Anonymous hacked are those who want to establish such a caliphate. They call themselves the movement for a caliphate, so it's not wrong for Anonymous to call them that.

2) One could argue that the establishment of such a caliphate is exactly what happened when Hassan al-Turabi [historycommons.org] formed a conference of Islamic terrorist organizations in 1991. The resulting unified worldwide terrorist organization, which Turabi named the Popular International Organization, came to be known in the West as al-Qaeda. Founding members included Iran, the Palestinians, and the Muslim Brotherhood. The parties that Anonymous is defacing are fronts for, or supporters of, one or more of the parties in Turabi's network.

But but ..but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39333625)

Anonymous was just arrested... surely this is the end of that group of......ooohhhhhh.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...