Regardless of who or what Anonymous are truly capable of, I think that what is interesting here is the incredibly large solidarity that is currently being expressed from all walks of life.
Nous sommes Charlie
Some members of Anonymous have vowed to avenge the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris by taking down jihadist websites. A video uploaded to the web by the group's Belgian wing also promises to scrub social networks of accounts promoting violent jihad. A statement announcing Op Charlie Hebdo, addressed to “enemies of freedom of …
Conard - je ne suis jamais Charlie. Parce que ils sont racistes vulgaires et ils n'ont pas d'esprit.
No I am not Charlie - because I am not an adolescent xeonphobic twat who uses "satire" as a fig leaf to indulge is a bit of race hatred. These guys indulged in hatred of my community and ethnicity, so I can not identify with these dicks.
So while I can condemn the actions of the gunmen, I can not not join in the rather meaningless wank of "Je suis Charlie".
Well your first mistake there is accusing Charlie Hebdo of racism: Islam is a relgion not a race and there are Muslims of every race and nationality.
And because it is a religion, not a race, it is open to questioning, satire and maybe ever some "hatred" like all concious choices. You don't choose your skin colour, sexual orientation or to have have any disabilities and so these topics should not be satirsed - but concious choices like your political affiliation, the football team you support, whether you use Vi or Emac and your religion are open to scrutinity and satire.
Also - have you seen any of the cartoons they published? The vast majority are not insulting to Mohammad and are mostly poking fun at those who think it's ok to warp his teachings to the levels that it's ok to murder 16 innocent people who drew something on a piece of paper. (How weak must their faith be if a cartoon can hurt them so?)
When they attack the Pope (http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2015-01/7/10/enhanced/webdr03/enhanced-15679-1420643314-17.png), the English, (http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2015-01/7/10/enhanced/webdr04/enhanced-32502-1420644540-1.jpg) or Jews (http://www.haaretz.co.il/st/inter/Heng/news/images/covers/3.jpg) are they also being racist?
Coming originally from a town with many racial problems (Burney) I do understand what you are getting at and using religion as a form of racism does exist - but I can see no evidence that is what has happened in the Charlie Hebdo case.
This anon didn't say he was Muslim, just that his community and ethnicity had been slurred. Charlie Hebdo had a strong reputation for attacking just about everyone with their satirical publication, so this commentard might be anyone; gay, british, American, Chinese, disabled etc. etc. Let's not jump to conclusions about who the offended party is.
Secondly, to the commentard in question; these were *not* adolescents. They were both over 70 years old and had survived the worst of what much of the world can throw. They expressed this experience in art and words and were not targeting any specific group exclusively. I would hesitate to condemn their satire as frivolous or shallow.
Perspective and reason please, people.
OK, two thoughts here: Firstly Anonymous interfering with Islamist websites/twitter risks disrupting security authorities intelligence gathering.
Secondly - this is an issue for the Muslim community as a whole. Rolling out spokesmen on the news media to tell us Islam is a peace loving religion and selectively quoting the Quran is wearing thin especially when others present us with other quotes apparently supportive of practices which are anathema to civilised society.
As for the defence that "it's a tiny minority" we should look at the wider situation. The so called "minority" of "bad muslims" includes Boko Harum, ISIS, several Middle Eastern and African states where "Sharia Law" imposes medieval punishments and repressive rules on women. It seems to me that "tiny minority" is not an accurate representation.
As regards the "good muslims" I recall their muted response to the 11 Sept 2001 outrage when I even heard statements from the same people who tell me "Islam is a peace loving religion" like "...yes but the Americans had it coming...". I'm no apologist for the USA, but 11 Sept was not the response of "a peace loving religion".
The immigration and integration problems of Western Europe seem to be laid at the foot of the those countries and their indigenous population who have become hosts to this alien religion. The boot should be on the other foot. If you wish to join a society it is your responsibility to integrate not ours to change to accommodate you.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
It's important to remember to restrict backlash to the right muslims. The vast majority of people just want to be left alone to get through their day in peace. By collectively snarling at all muslims, regardless of their moderation, it's just going to increase social tensions and that's playing straight into the hands of the sickos; also pretty well guaranteeing escalation.
The passive vast majority of muslims must also be held to account for the actions of their barbaric co-religionists as long as they all read from the same Koran and claim to be observant muslims; that single Koran which requires all infidels to be killed.
The 'vast majority' must not be allowed to put on long faces, stand around and utter clucking sounds of "concern".
They are complicit as long as they call themselves observant muslims.
Of course, they're caught in a Catch 22 because then they become 'apostates' who must be killed.
A lot of muslim leaders have been distancing themselves from the radicals (not Saudi Arabia though). Also consider the muslim who saved a bunch of people in the Paris shooting by hiding them in a walk-in freezer.
What you're effectively saying is that all christians should be held accountable for Westboro Baptist Church.
If you demonise everybody in a large group because of the actions of the few you're just going to make things much, much worse for everybody. Unfortunate incidents will happen, followed by retaliation for said incidents and before you know it the whole world is a shitshow like the middle east.
Yes, Christians SHOULD be held accountable for the Westboro Baptist Church. Anyone who thinks their bronze-aged fairy-tale is justification for prejudice deserves shunning, mere satire and ridicule are allowing these stupid, deluded idiots to get off lightly.
If we expect radical Muslims to emancipate themselves from mental slavery then we must do the same, anything less is just hypocrisy.
Ban religion and the intellectual cowards who practice it!
> The passive vast majority of muslims must also be held to account for the actions of their barbaric co-religionists as long as they all read from the same Koran and claim to be observant muslims; that single Koran which requires all infidels to be killed.
The passive vast majority of whites must be held to account for the actions of their barbaric peers in this riot after an Ohio State Buckeyes game: http://www.businessinsider.com/cops-pepper-spray-ohio-state-students-during-football-national-championship-riot-2015-1
Where are the white community leaders at to decry this white-on-white violence?
I'd consider it a sort of litmus test for cultural compatibility. Insult their god and phophet before a group of muslims: Those who complain but take no further action are peaceful and suitable for coexistance, for though they may not share western values entirely there is at least enough agreement for a 'live and let live' approach. Those who demand government censorship or fly into a violent rage are the troublemakers, and it's better to force them to reveal themselves now than wait for some future time when they may have greater influence, for coexistance with them isn't possible without conflict.
The deaths of the French police and Charlie Hebdo staff were monstrous atrocities.
However, true freedom of speech means letting the weirdos and crazies spout their ideas as well. Anyone who goes down the "let's ban these folks cuz I don't agree with what they said" is just as bad as Al-Qaeda and the US government for the same reason.
Just because you disagree with an opinion does not mean you should ban it. That is the thin edge of the wedge and will eventually impact back on your life when the majority disagree with what you have to say. Restricting freedom of speech is an abridgement of every persons rights and there is enough of that going on in the world.
Tyrants want to control what is said, or even thought. Be very afraid of a government who wants to protect you by restricting your access to information as it will only increase over time. There will always be extremist opinions. Only education, open debate, and freedom to speak / write freely can change that.
The Charlie Hebdo staff died for expressing that freedom.
I do agree with many of your points but unless I mis-read this there's one thing I have a problem with.
This went way beyond "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression". An AK-47 isn't the same as pen and ink. Sitting back and being philosophical has little place when the shooting starts and these guys have started shooting.
So, Anonymous is one thing... but those extremists are different critter.
'Anonymous" is stepping onto slippery, sloping hypocritical territory here. [or, more likely, maybe they couldn't care less, if it brings headlines]
Does 'Anonymous' know better than GCHQ and the Surete' how to deal with muslim terrorism using the Internet as a vehicle for their probing?
Also, one can bet that Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein's chair-seat is heating up a bit, especially with having a name like his, being faced now with this minefield of 'Rights' to be explored in the tangled context of muslims having the 'right' to enforce their koran dictated 'right' to blow up people and offices they have a grievance with?
Stay tuned. This is just the elastic start of Hypocrisy Central.
>The ... freedom.
There is nothing in what you've written that really warrants your posting anonymously. You should--by your own standards--be free to post what you've posted under you own name (or avatar, if applicable)*. And without fear of being pigeon-holed or stigmatised. Anonymity is largely the assassin's refuge and aerie. But it can also trap.
Circumspection about anonymity, as a resort, should have priority over circumspection about what you want to say.
* I'm not without sin in this regard, though; I've posted anonymously in order to avoid too much, and accumulated, hate from certain quarters, representatives/acolytes of which are known to circulate in these waters...
.......And in an ideal world these would be valid point, HOWEVER... the weirdos and crazies are actively seeking to stop free discourse and expression of ideas by use of deadly force, which means the "tolerance and understanding" school of thought is on a loser as it is taken by these nut jobs as being a display of weakness and "decadence" .
Turning the other cheek is all very well in the playground, but when the citizenry is being blown away by hate filled religious zealots (many of whom will be acting out of a view corrupted and bastardized by radicals who seek power for themselves and would wish to cast society back to some past feudal point), then that is time to up the game in defence of those for whom religion is something "other people do". As civilised people we don't arm and take to the streets, so if a group wants to make a protest in this way and possibly disrupt the use of radicalisation/jihadist sites then good luck to 'em!
Does anyone else see the Streisand effect in this? On Monday I have never heard of Charlie Hebdo. So any irony about Anonymous Defending free speech by deying free speech is more than outweighed by the global publicity given to a relatively obscure (outside of France) publication by those seeking to destroy it.
"Just because you disagree with an opinion does not mean you should ban it."
However, it is ironic that the [Charlie Hebdo] editors once sponsored a petition drive to ban the [French] National Front... It seems they are happy to ban organizations with opinions that don't align with their own.
agree completely except for this last part: "The Charlie Hebdo staff died for expressing that freedom."
i don't think they did. i believe they died to send a message. who sent that message i believe is still yet to be identified (there're more people involved in this who're yet to be exposed). having said that, i think the message was perfectly clear: "France, you better start complying". and by compliance i mean "shift your politics to the right".
So anonymous are going to defend freedom of speech by denying freedom of speech?
As an avowed atheist I have no truck with religion being used as the excuse for all sorts of heinous crimes and propping up dictatorships, and abhor the actions of the nut jobs in France over the last couple of days. But this does seem a bit contradictory.
While I agree that freedom with limits is in practice greater freedom than freedom without limits — e.g. it's fine that I'm not allowed to steal because the principle in general frees me from a lot of burden by facilitating shops — I'm not I want Anonymous policing anything for me. Accountability is important too.
So anonymous are going to defend freedom of speech by denying freedom of speech?
Yeah, it's what they do. They probably even get the irony. Of course, if they really wanted to go for a full eye-for-eye treatment, they might do better to find the locations and identities of all those people against whom they are venting their spleen and post those details for all to see. Perhaps they are taking a more measured approach than they did after the Michael Brown shooting.
A newspaper front page with Muhammed complaining that *some* (his most extreme) followers are idiots/nutcases, along with other covers mocking Christian, Jews, politicians, Brits, ....) is freedom of expression (and not racism as they were only targeting idiots/far right independently of any color, race or religion).
A website posting pictures of the authors of the front page specifying wanted "dead or alive", providing homemade terrorist recipes etc is not freedom of speech, is call to crime.
I have no problem with the latest being shut down (or replaced by the first one).
Je suis Charlie.
(not anonymous coward, just by respect to the 12 that gave their life to fight for our freedom of speech).
I am all for annihilating the these @#@()@!!, but I have one question I've been muddling with since speaking with a Muslim regarding his faith. While we, in the western world - and in particular, Christianity - don't have many convictions of portraying God, in Islam, it is not accepted. The portrayal of Mohammed is taboo, which is the argument these F...tards, in Paris proclaimed. Despite their actions, would it not be acceptable to respect that, in terms of respect to all Muslims? I don't justify their actions, nor defend any of the ISIL - or any fanatical idiots of any religion - but I do question, what the boundaries are. In this new world of information, I see humans struggling to define what is acceptable and what is not, yet we have lost the ability to respect each other. Only a question...I'm not trying to troll or invite argument.
I can fully understand that others may disagree with the things I say, or the things I do - they have that right, they also have the right to call me out on my actions, to vocally disagree with my opinions, and to campaign for a better understanding between me and them - this is how adults handle disagreements.
They do not have the right to hunt me down and kill me, or anyone else for that matter.
One question I would like answered - Does the Koran specifically say that you aren't allowed to have a visual depiction of its author (not god, just the author)
Or is that something that got tacked on afterwards?
it got added later. depictions of the prophet are taboo mainly to avoid deification. Islam is very strict on the 'oneness' of God so any activity which leads to the elevation of any individual (including and especially concerning the prophet) is strictly forbidden. Muslims are reminded constantly that the prophet is a messenger (ie mortal and not God).
muslims feel offended when the prophet is made fun of for the same reasons that anyone would get offended if someone they love and respect is made fun off. to describe it as the sort of feeling you get if someone insulted your parents isn't too far an approximation for how muslims feel about offensive remarks/depictions of the prophet.
given that muslims are sensitive (and avoid) even positive depictions of the prophet, negative depictions are very difficult to deal with for many. this is in the context of a world in which the majority of muslims (certainly in the West) feel 'attacked' and 'victimised' in some way. whether it's true or not, is another issue, the feelings of resentment and victim-hood are there.
ac because i've been attacked and been made to feel like a victim before and don't want to have to deal with that shit again.
There are many historical artistic and religious depictions of Islamic prophets including Mohammed. A lot of these are Iranian.
The "ban" on icons of Mohammed comes directly from hadiths, which were created more than 100 years after Mohammed had died. The hadiths are different in Sunni and Shia traditions and come from different sources. The hadiths seem to be main source of division within the Muslim world, and also include the source of many opposing principles between the Muslim world and most other ideologies.
Some Muslims do not agree with hadiths at all, and others pick and choose which they follow, but for the majority they play an extensive role in the religious laws to live by.
Blasphemy is one of those principles, which has only recently been put behind us in most western countries. Yet it has been re-introduced again in one particular European country believe it or not.
Sensitivity to depictions of their prophet, and the comparison that insulting the prophet is much the same as insulting their parents still doesn't give them the right to kill
If someone insulted my mum, I might rightly be annoyed at them , I may mouth of and insult them in turn, I may ignore them at parties, or if this is on an international scale, I may shun then diplomatically.
I certainly wouldn't pop round to their house and gun them down.
That's because I'm sane, and learnt in playgrounds about the difference between sticks/stones and names.
If Anonymous wants to truly do some good in the world (and I think most of their members have their hearts in the right place), they could use their considerable collective knowledge and influence to continually disrupt and thwart all web and communications efforts of insane, subhuman radicals like ISIS that do nothing but sow misery, ignorance, and collectively set the human race back as a whole.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019