back to article Hold on, France and Russia. Anonymous is here to kick ISIS butt

As world powers prepare to bomb barbaric ISIS into the medieval age it so dearly craves, in the wake of the Paris attacks Anonymous too has declared war on the terror group. Make no mistake: #Anonymous is at war with #Daesh. We won't stop opposing #IslamicState. We're also better hackers. #OpISIS — Anonymous (@GroupAnon) …

  1. Tony-A

    72 virgins. Not young virgins, but old hags. There's a reason they're still virgins.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      male virgins is far more likely from the ranks of anonymous.

      1. TonyJ Silver badge

        Heh...put them off by taking them around any IT helpdesk... "Look...here is a sample of some virgins..."

        ;-)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      A little ditty...

      72 virgins waiting for me

      I'm one too;

      That makes 73!

    3. MJI Silver badge

      Actually

      They will be the other Daesh casulties.

      "Right got another 73, tell them they have their 72 virgins."

    4. herman Silver badge

      One 72 year old virgin?

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      No need to outsource. A couple of slags from Essex could do the job...

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Getting Tough

    "On Monday, Anonymous has already stirred the waters by naming US content-delivery provider Cloudflare as one of the firms keeping ISIS online."

    So Anonymous is basically saying that any firm which thwarts Anonymous from carying out judgement on the condemned is automatically tarred with the same crimes as the condemned?

    Sounds great! Anonymous is known to be fair and impartial, so why NOT get out of their way, Cloudflare? You're not just shielding ISIS, you're protecting Conservatives too! Are there no bounds to your evil?

    1. Martin-73 Silver badge

      Re: Getting Tough

      But ISIS *ARE* conservatives...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Getting Tough

        "Islamic fundamentalist" does not equal "Conservative," except in a few warped minds. The impulse towards total control over society tends to be a Left thing anyway.

        1. MacroRodent Silver badge

          Re: Getting Tough

          "Islamic fundamentalist" does not equal "Conservative," except in a few warped minds.

          "Conservative" means someone who wants to keep things the same, or return them to some past idealized state. In the U.S. it seems to mean return to the unbridled capitalism of the 1800's and early 1900's, in Russia conservatives long for the return of the U.S.S.R., and the islamic fundamentalists want to return to the islamic society like it was about 1400 years ago... I would say they are the most extreme conservatives of them all :-).

          1. LucreLout Silver badge

            Re: Getting Tough

            @MacroRodent

            "Conservative" means someone who wants to keep things the same, or return them to some past idealized state.

            Your definition is wrong for these purposes, otherwise the entire "Labour movement", as they like to describe themselves, are Conservatives. I think you'll find they may disagree.....

            1. Al Black

              Re: Getting Tough

              The Labour Party wants to return to the Union run society of the 1950's: you can't get more Conservative than that! And calling free market Capitalists "Tories" is positively 19th Century.

          2. G.Y.

            return Re: Getting Tough

            For those who want to return to a past state, the term is "reactionary"

            1. Al Black

              Re: return Getting Tough

              Yes; you are technically correct. Conservatives want to preserve (conserve) the status quo, by definition; however Conservative has come to mean those who want to roll back to an earlier, idealised point in time, such as the middle-class paradise of the Thatcher era.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: return Getting Tough

                Certain sections of the culture would have it that way, yes. It's a transparent attempt to stick a 'troglodite' label on conservatism, and it's laughable unless we all accept your assertion at face value.

        2. Martin-73 Silver badge

          Re: Getting Tough

          Umm, oddly enough, I USED to believe what you just said, but then, my own experience happened. Every restrictive law passed recently has been a right wing one*

          *for avoidance of doubt, tony blair is far right wing.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Getting Tough

            One of my favourite quotes is what Cherie Blair's father supposedly said when he learned she was marring Tony, "God, she's marrying a Tory" and that was years ago. The labour party is far right wing, Blair is extreme right wing.

            1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

              Re: Getting Tough

              The labour party is far right wing, Blair is extreme right wing.

              You're exaggerating, of course. He was opportunistic as much as anything else, which is why the evident conviction displayed about Iraq sat so strangely and for which he will probably be remembered (and reviled). Looking back I always try and imagine how things would have been if the Tories had stayed in power. But he did drag the country into a needless and expensive conflict that has almost certainly contributed to instability in the Middle East.

              Mr Booth's comment did, however, prefigure Blair's opportunistic and egocentric politics as wonderfully satirised by The Comic Strip in The Hunt For Tony Blair.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Getting Tough

                No discussion on politics can escape the remarkably simple political compass people want to create, many not even a compass but a single line.

                It's getting kind of boring now, political leanings are complex and we're doing everybody a disservice by talking about it in such basic terms.

                1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

                  Re: Getting Tough

                  No discussion on politics can escape the remarkably simple political compass people want to create, many not even a compass but a single line.

                  When it comes to political discussions around here, "a single line" overestimates the degrees of freedom in most posters' political models by at least one.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Getting Tough

            Every restrictive law passed recently has been a right wing one

            Says someone who doesn't know the meaning of the left-right scale. Which is understandable because it's a fairly crappy way to classify politicians and tends to leave everything interesting alone.

        3. LucreLout Silver badge

          Re: Getting Tough

          @Big John

          The impulse towards total control over society tends to be a Left thing anyway.

          An outrageous slur Sir!!

          Don't you know that nazi was an abbreviation for National Capitalist. Oh, no, wait...

          1. imaginarynumber

            Re: Getting Tough

            "Don't you know that nazi was an abbreviation for National Capitalist"

            Erm, you mean the political party that rejected both free market capitalism and Marxist socialism?

            They could have called themselves the National My Little Pony Party, it doesn't follow that they had an equine fetish or that they wanted to elevate the position of those with pink manes

            No need to reply, it is pretty clear from your tired post where your political allegiances lie (which is your prerogative). For the record, I am a "none of the above" kinda guy (rightly or wrongly).

            1. LucreLout Silver badge

              Re: Getting Tough

              @imaginarynumber

              Erm, you mean the political party that rejected both free market capitalism and Marxist socialism?

              That you think Marxist socialism is the only socialism makes it pretty clear where your uneducated and ill-thought out garbage is coming from. No need to reply, petal. For the record, the nazi's were a hell of a lot closer to socialists than capitalists, certainly in economic terms.

          2. JLV Silver badge

            Re: Getting Tough

            +1

            Though, to be fair, I recall Adolf got plenty of support from good old corporations and capitalists as well. Probably them wishing to avoid the Worker's Paradise alternative which really ended up pretty nasty too.

            I really wish we got better at respecting each others' opinions. This whole you don't vote my way so you suck is a very tiresome trend, one of the most annoying contributions of our US brethren with their endless Dems vs Reps stormy teacups.

            As to Daesh, we should feed them pig faeces when captured. But I also wish regular Muslims were a lot more aggressive in policing their communities and speaking up against jihadists, rather than just stating (not using 'claiming' is deliberate) it has nothing to do with them. There's a big way-too-silent majority that needs to be much more active in rooting out this poison and perversion of their religion. Though I also empathize that these events are hurting them too, esp if we all become more intolerant. Which is Daesh's goal, no doubt.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Getting Tough

              > "There's a big way-too-silent majority that needs to be much more active in rooting out this poison and perversion of their religion."

              That would be good but it can't happen. In the Koran, violence against unbelievers and stratified discrimination of women and unbelievers is inherent and (apparently) approved of by Allah, particularly towards the end. I won't even get into the 'Allah-approved lying to infidels' thing.

              Any faithful Muslims who want to oppose their faith's terrorists must also face charges from those violent fundies that they are going against the teachings of Mohammed, as revealed in the Koran. It's obviously too much to ask of most Muslims.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Getting Tough

          The impulse towards total control over society tends to be a Left thing anyway.

          True.

          It's important to remember that National Socialism was the name and foundation of Adolf H.'s organization. As evidenced by the downvotes here, it's the radical left that wants to suppress speech they don't agree with. if you read "Mein Kampf", and Mussolini's "My Story", both books talk about how easy it is to manipulate extreme left-wing socialists into agreeing with a totalitarian state.

          The Extreme Right wants a weak central government with weak corporate oversight.

          The Extreme Left wants a strong central government with strong corporate oversight.

          Which one was Adolf?

          if you want an example of my Right-Wing model above, look at right-wing Texas. The state legislature does very little, all the power is in the local governments. and corporate oversight is moderate. The majority of Texas State income comes from county taxes and fees (taxes from oil is less than 10%), most of which stays within the county. By keeping the money at the county level corruption is minimized. There is no state income taxes, instead there are "pay as you go" fees. The rich pay more, and the poor pay little. Texas is one of the most financially healthy states in the USA. Conservative Texas is what liberals pretend to want.

          Compare that to ultra-Leftist California, which has a huge, bloated, corrupt state legislature and crushing corporate oversight. By sending all taxes and fees to the state government the corruption in CA is absolutely staggering. The state government completely dominates and manipulates each and every facet of your life. The state is so financially crippled that it is one of the few states that while making moderate yearly increases in population, it is declining in labor force every year.

          If you downvote me, ask yourself why - is it because what I wrote is incorrect - then, go ahead. But if you downvote me because you do not like the truth of what I wrote, then you validate all my points.

  3. TeeCee Gold badge
    WTF?

    "The campaign, dubbed #OpParis..."

    Someone ought to tell them that. They used "#OpISIS" in the tweet shown.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Windows

      Re: "The campaign, dubbed #OpParis..."

      Welcome to the New Anarchy...

    2. LucreLout Silver badge
      Paris Hilton

      Re: "The campaign, dubbed #OpParis..."

      @TeeCee

      Someone ought to tell them that. They used "#OpISIS" in the tweet shown.

      Well, yeah, but only because OpParis doesn't mean what I thought it meant....

  4. JustNiz

    >> "A website is speech... no provider has an affirmative obligation to monitor and make determinations about the theoretically harmful nature of speech a site may contain," said Cloudflare's CEO Matthew Prince

    if Anonymous just planted some rips of commercial CDs and DVDs on all the ISIS sites then tipped off the RIAA/MPAA, I'd give it a day at most before Cloudflare suddenly did a complete U-turn.

    1. herman Silver badge

      May I suggest a couple:

      Hell's Bells - AC DC

      War Pigs - Black Sabbath

  5. Unbelievable!

    Go get them IS nutjobs Anonymous. And thank you.

    ps. you can really ruin their day with a Win 10 upgrade, if you get time.

  6. ben edwards

    Good intentions, bad outcome

    Shutting down publicly accessible sites used by ISIS will only make it harder for the people paid to do this to do their jobs...

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: Good intentions, bad outcome

      Indeed, it will. The problem is currently, that the people doing their job are overwhelmed. They note, identify and track... and then get distracted by the next guy/group that pops up. The first ones carry one. It's already been admitted in the popular press that the security/spy/intel types are overwhelmed and yet their bosses feel the need to collect more. I think someone needs to take a deep breath and figure out priorities and how to handle the info/data they're already collecting.

      Part of what is coming out is "we had no intel on this", "we had chatter and knew something was up" and the inevitable: "we knew of them and had them on a watch list".

      Edit: I should have added... things are getting tougher on the Intel types as reports are that the baddies are using the Playstation to communicate and the encryption and methods of hiding comms are pretty much unbreakable. The greed of the 5-eyes and seeking more data collection has already sent many groups deep into more secure comms.

      1. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

        Re: Good intentions, bad outcome

        The greed of the 5-eyes and seeking more data collection has already sent many groups deep into more secure comms.

        No! Really?! If criminals know their comms are being watched, they move to more secure methods?! Wow, we could never have seen that comming!

        1. Triggerfish

          Re: Good intentions, bad outcome @Dr Mouse

          You didn't, hmmn you wouldn't be on one of the people who writes our policy on why we should be monitored would you?

        2. Mark 85 Silver badge

          Re: Good intentions, bad outcome

          Apparently, certain agencies didn't see that one coming... or maybe I should say, still not seeing that one coming.

    2. JLV Silver badge

      Re: Good intentions, bad outcome

      Oh, I dunno. If ISIS has any kinda clue they would compartmentalize their recruitment vs their operations. Meaning that penetrating a propaganda website would then show you little besides who browses it and if really lucky, who admins it. If that is true, taking it down achieves more than leaving it up as a honeypot.

      On the whole, forcing them to expend efforts to keep up their propaganda arm is better than leaving them with clear access to hearts and minds.

      My $0.02 anyway. For once I am rooting for Anonymous.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Great

    I hope they do better than the time they declared war to Mexican cartels. That kind of petered out fast.

    Then again, what is more dangerous between ISIS and Mexican cartels? I'd say the former have more numbers, but the latter are better organized… For violence, it seems a toss-up.

  8. moiety

    Fuck the daesh. There is no justification to open up an automatic weapon into a restaurant. None. Ever.

    1. TimeMaster T
      Mushroom

      Unfortunately as far as Daesh is concerned the simple fact that those in the restaurant we not Muslims was all the justification they needed. And even if some were it still wouldn't have mattered to the shooters, to Daesh any Muslims who die in their attacks die as Martyrs for the greater glory of Allah (blessed is His name, or some such BS like that) and get a free pass to paradise.

      The more I find out about Islam the more I am convinced that the world will never know any kind of lasting peace while ANY religions exist.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        No, it's worse

        One of the targets was a restaurant run by Algerians in a very multicultural part of Paris. They were targeted for being the wrong kind of Muslim, which makes them just as bad as you and I as far as Daesh is concerned.

        And before anybody gets carried away with finding out more about Islam, remember that the whole Northern Ireland shitfest was decades of violence between two flavors of Christians; and the Balkans is a three-way clusterfuck between Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, and Muslims.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: No, it's worse

          "And before anybody gets carried away with finding out more about Islam, remember that the whole Northern Ireland shitfest was decades of violence between two flavors of Christians; and the Balkans is a three-way clusterfuck between Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, and Muslims."

          The commonality in all of them: religion. Hence TimeMaster T's comment "I am convinced that the world will never know any kind of lasting peace while ANY religions exist."

          1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
            Coat

            Another commonality : they all breathe oxygen.

            Death to oxygen breathers !

          2. Kamal Hashmi

            Re: No, it's worse

            Let me just correct that for you:

            The commonality in all of them: religion. Hence TimeMaster T's comment "I am convinced that the world will never know any kind of lasting peace while ANY humans exist."

            (If not religion then some other belief system will replace it).

          3. Esme

            Re: No, it's worse

            @AC - so far as religion is concerned, I think you'll find that it's the fact they are organised religions that causes the problem, as any organisation is effectively a power structure and there'll always be those that want to be at the top, and those who want to abuse such structures. Not all religion is organised though. (also, not all faith is incompatible with a scientific mindset, although that's a whole 'nother argument).

            I'm not convinced that Daesh is motivated by any kind of Islam per se - seems to be a bunch of social inadequates who feel that arming themselves and behaving atrociously is a way to gain power and 'respect' that they haven't been able to get by normal social means. Except, of course, that all it actually does is make any sane and civilised person regard them as barbarous dipshits. Islam is simply the excuse they use., IMHO.

            As to why they can use Islam in this way, well, I'm part way through reading a very interesting book, called 'Heretic', by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Born in Somalia and raised a Muslim, but now living in the West, teh author argues the case for Islam being in need of a Reformation, and she identifies five points of the Islamic faith as being inherently harmful and in need of being repudiated:

            (begin quote:)

            1. Muhammad's semi-divine and infallible status along with the literalist reading of the Qu'ran, particularly those parts that were revealed in Medina*;

            2.The investment in life after death instead of life before death;

            3. Sharia, the body of legislation derived from the Qu'ran, the hadith**, and the rest of Islamic jurisprudence;

            4. The practice of empowering individuals to enforce Islamic law by commanding right and forbidding wrong;

            5. The imperative to wage jihad, or holy war.

            (end quote)

            * apparently during his time in Medina, Muhammad was in a more fiery frame of mind, as compared to his more peaceful attitude originally, at Mecca.

            ** the hadith are reports of the sayings and doings of Muhammad during his life which are used to interpret what is in the Qu'ran.

            Apologies if either of my clarifications immediately above are incorrect in any way, I have simply precis'd my understanding of what I have read in this book.

            I would thoroughly reccomend 'Heretic' to anyone interested in the subject of Islam and its relationship to the modern world. I have found it very thought-provoking and compelling, and easily the most constructive thing I've read on the subject to date.

            I would add that although a theist myself, I do not believe that adherence to a religion has anything to do with whether one is a moral, ethical, or good person. It's ones actions that count. Faith is that which keeps one going; religion is the window-dressing to faith that pleases one, to my mind. It is a persons actions alone that deterrmine whether they are good or evil. In my humble opinion.

            1. James Micallef Silver badge

              Re: No, it's worse

              " the case for Islam being in need of a Reformation"

              Completely true, although let's keep in mind that the Christian Reformation, while bringing to an end the excesses of the Crusades and the Inquisition, was itself a process that took a couple of centuries and also involved much sectarian bloodshed.

              I can only hope that in the Internet age, the quicker spreading of ideas allows medieval thinking to be enlightened faster than the medieval thinking is poisoning susceptible minds. After all it is evident in many other areas, while people as individuals can and do change, wholesale changes in social attitudes don't. What really happens is youth are exposed to new ideas and old people set in their thinking eventually die out

        2. Yugguy

          Re: No, it's worse

          Ireland wasn't really about religion - they were just labels of convenience. It was about nationality.

      2. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

        The more I find out about Islam the more I am convinced that the world will never know any kind of lasting peace while ANY religions exist.

        While they use Islam as a cover for their actions, the ISIS murderers are not Muslims. Their beliefs have been distorted, in the same way that all have over history.

        The commonality is not religion, but humans. South Park summed it up quite well (in Go God God?). The whole world turned Atheist, yet there was war between 3 factions over with different answers to the "great question". Humans have always found ways to be shitty to each other. Religion is just one of the excuses used, as is race, gender, sexuality, nationality... It will be a long time before we stop this, if we ever do.

        1. Def Silver badge

          Religion is just one of the excuses used, as is race, gender, sexuality, nationality...

          Gender and sexuality discrimination has firm roots in religion. At least, as far as I can see, religion is the main reason they still exist today. Yes, you're still going to get assholes who think they have the right to impose their views and morals on others. But take away their ability (or right as they might say) to hide behind religion, and they'll mostly get ignored.

          Racism and nationalism are mostly on the rise at the moment due to perceived differences in culture brought to the media's obsession with immigration caused currently by... religious wars. Yes we've always had these issues in the past, but many cultural differences have been attenuated through religious differences as well.

          I'm not saying we wouldn't have problems without religion, but on the whole I think we'd be a lot better off.

          As for Islamic State, I've been calling them Un-Islamic State for a while now. No point giving them legitimacy by referring to them with the name they call themselves.

          1. LucreLout Silver badge
            Joke

            @Def

            Yes, you're still going to get assholes who think they have the right to impose their views and morals on others

            Moderators?

          2. Triggerfish

            Religon is just away of identifying your tribe, which means you can then identify the other tribe so it makes it easier to work out who you should kick the shit out of on a day you are feeling peevish. See also, football, colour, sexuality, star trek versus STNG, gamergate, coffee snobs, Apple v Microsfot, Apple v Android, Linux V Microsoft, Gingers v world. whatever really.

            1. moiety

              I dunno. Most religions seem to boil down to "do what I say now and you'll get sweeties in the afterlife". A method of control that -not incidentally- give the chief practitioners a cushy indoor job with no heavy lifting.

              Some people seem to get comfort and a sense of identity from it, and more power to them. The problems arise when they start to get evangelical or -worse- evangelical and militant. Got no problems with quietly religious people...they seem a little odd to me; but I'm sure that they'd say the same about me.

        2. James Micallef Silver badge

          "While they use Islam as a cover for their actions, the ISIS murderers are not Muslims. Their beliefs have been distorted, in the same way that all have over history."

          I think that "beliefs have been distorted" statement needs to be qualified. Killing of blasphemers and apostates, stoning adulterers to death, killing infidels in determined circumstances, being judged by religious and not civil law (essentially a merging of church and state) ... all of these are part of Islam, no distortions. Either majorities or significantly large minorities of Muslims agree with many or all of the above-mentioned beliefs.

          Certainly the more civilised Muslims do not agree with or live by that sort of code, just as modern civilised Roman Catholics use contraception and modern Jews no longer dispense Old Testament 'Eye for an eye' justice. But it's actually modern Roman Catholics, Jews etc who have 'distorted' the literal biblical teachings that were inhumane, intolerant and stupid to come up with a set of beliefs that work in modern society. With Islam, the same needs to happen, and until the vast majority of Muslims* adapt their interpretation of Islam to one more in keeping with living in a modern civilised society, problems like ISIS will continue to happen.

          *I'm talking 99% here, as opposed to currently 70-80% in the most progressive muslim countries down to probably 20-30% or even less in some places

          1. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

            "Killing of blasphemers and apostates, stoning adulterers to death, killing infidels in determined circumstances, being judged by religious and not civil law (essentially a merging of church and state) ... all of these are part of Islam, no distortions."

            From what I understand (and I am no expert, but have researched the subject), all passages of the Qu'ran advocating violence belong to specific periods of war. This is just the same as when the Israelites had left Egypt and were trying to establish a place where they could be safe and free: They sacked cities, murdered women and children, in the name of god. If you then read further, once civilisation had taken root, the teachings become less violent. Taken in context, the Qu'ran does not support violence today.

            Anyone who holds that a book written hundreds of years ago should still be used as a literal, absolute rule book... Well, they need their heads examining. I support religious freedom, as long as it is not forced upon others with different beliefs, and argue against the hard-line atheists as much as religious nutters, but beliefs need to adapt with evidence and society. As an example, I do not believe that evolution or the big bang theory are incompatible with Christianity. They could be how God created the universe, especially given how symbolic the Bible is in places.

          2. JLV Silver badge

            +1 except the Muslim code originally did in fact allow specifically for tolerance wrt People of the Book, i.e. Christians and Jews. As usual, lots of good core ideas get lost and willfully ignored by fanatics on all sides, just as Communism ended up perversion of any kind of workers's rights.

            It's not atheists vs religious that matters, it's normal people vs rabid bloodthirsty fanatics that matter. We got the guns and we got the numbers, ISIS.

            1. KBeee

              Upvote just because of the "normal people vs rabid bloodthirsty fanatics". I think you summed it up.

        3. Graham Jordan

          @Dr. Mouse

          No, they are Muslims, just not of the same sect as say Sunni, Shai or even main stream Westernised. They pray to their invisible super hero friend, that makes them religious. They identify themselves as Muslims, they're Muslims.

          Atheists don't murder one another because of their different beliefs. No Atheist has ever opened fire on innocents because they believe in the big rip and not the eternal expansion of the universe.

          Profit and power start/prolong wars. Remove religion entirely and you're going to find it bloody difficult to justify a bombing campaign when suddenly the world is a whole lot calmer.*

          *Unless of course your China. Or Russia. Or a Nork.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @Dr. Mouse

            "Unless of course your China."

            I'm confused. I have my own China? And where is the rest of that sentence?

          2. Yugguy

            Re: @Dr. Mouse

            Cloud cuckoo land if you beleive that if religion was removed we'd all be living in an enlightened utopia.

            Religion is used as a justification to weild power. There will ALWAYS be those who wish to weild power over others. They would simply find another excuse to do so.

        4. Sweep

          "the ISIS murderers are not Muslims"

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

          Islam is (basically) the interpretation of the writings (Koran) and teachings/ sayings about Muhammed (Hadith). That ISISs interpretation differs from that of the majority of Muslims today does not make them non-Muslims. ISISs Islam is the closest to the religion of the historical Muhammed (who conquered Mecca, most of Arabia, started the Muslim conquests etc etc)......

      3. Roj Blake Silver badge

        "Unfortunately as far as Daesh is concerned the simple fact that those in the restaurant we not Muslims was all the justification they needed. And even if some were it still wouldn't have mattered to the shooters, to Daesh any Muslims who die in their attacks die as Martyrs for the greater glory of Allah (blessed is His name, or some such BS like that) and get a free pass to paradise.

        "The more I find out about Islam the more I am convinced that the world will never know any kind of lasting peace while ANY religions exist."

        ____________

        You do know that the two biggest mass murderers of all time (Mao and Stalin) were atheists, right?

        If it's acceptable to blame all Muslims for the actions of a fanatical minority, then presumably you are to blame for the Long March and the Siberian gulags.

        1. James Micallef Silver badge

          "You do know that the two biggest mass murderers of all time (Mao and Stalin) were atheists, right?"

          In the context being used here, "religion" = any belief system that fosters an "us vs them" mentality in which the "them" are un-humans to be eliminated. Quite often the leaders of such religion do not themselves believe it, or believe it only enough (doublethink) to further their ends. Mao and Stalin's type of communism is exactly a religion as being discussed here. I also include extreme nationalism in this category*.

          Let's be clear, there will always be megalomaniac sociopaths who will do everything in their manipulative power to reach their ends, this type of "religion" for them is a tool to brainwash the masses. If people no longer have a "religion" (as being used in this context), this cannot be used against them to manipulate them.

          *Religion since the alleged superiority of the particular ideology, nation, race etc is taken as an article of faith that clear^ly falls apart on the first application of critical thought.

          1. Yugguy

            "religion" = any belief system that fosters an "us vs them" mentality"

            This is a just a convenient definition you've decided on to support your own argument. Using this logic you could define almost anything as a religion.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @ Roj Blake: A certain amount of truth in what you say but...

          > You do know that the two biggest mass murderers of all time (Mao and Stalin) were atheists, right?

          Ostensibly maybe but in reality I think it is fair to say that they used a dogmatic system (communism) to create a cult of personality around themselves and maintain a strict social order. This is pretty much cult behaviour writ large but without any nod to mystical beings. What they really did was replace a feudal state/religious dichotomy with an industrial state hegemony - it was religion in all but name, insofar as religion is really just a means of enforcing tradition and preserving the ruling class. I'd even go so far as to say that communism was the final evolution of religion before people actually started to realise that it was all a con.

          (I trust no one is going to come back at me with the 'magic sky fairies do exist, because my mom told me when I was 4 years old and I've never plucked up the courage to question it' justification)

          But you are right, it is unfair to blame any group for the actions of a handfull of nutjobs.

          I still feel that we would all be better off if we gave up on divisive religious notions and stopped trying to impose our personal morality on others (and they are generally divisive, no matter what watered-down apologists might try to claim to the contrary). Science has won, the sky fairies only exist in old books, can we move on now? Hold to no dogma, challenge your beliefs and think critically, it's the only light you have in the darkness.

        3. Geoffrey W

          RE: "You do know that the two biggest mass murderers of all time (Mao and Stalin) were atheists, right?"

          Yes, but they didn't do their murdering because atheism told them to do it, or even in the name of atheism. They did their murdering for expediency to maintain control and themselves in power.

          1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

            > Yes, but they didn't do their murdering because atheism told them to do it

            I'm sure that was a great comfort to their victims.

            1. Geoffrey W

              RE; "> Yes, but they didn't do their murdering because atheism told them to do it

              I'm sure that was a great comfort to their victims."

              Of course it wasn't. Neither is it a reason to bring atheism into the argument. You might as well say Stalin drank coffee, or Mao enjoyed bird watching, and imply that had something to do with their odorous doings, or any arbitrary thing they might have done or believed. Its a straw man argument designed to divert attention from religions role in numerous other atrocities.

      4. herman Silver badge

        Man will only be free, once the last king was strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

  9. Martin Summers Silver badge

    I thought Linda had got this?

    1. Martin Summers Silver badge

      http://m.imgur.com/gallery/96vYiZr

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I hope this "Anonymous" political group with it's simplistic, flawed world-view don't fool too many wannabes into joining their collective, as much as I hope misguided people wont join ISIS. Anonymous don't seem to understand that their actions are provocative and might result in more innocent blood being shed. If they stage another "million mask march" they'll likely be targeted.

    If the leaders are anonymous, how can they be held to account? Why would anyone trust them and their intentions any more than they would trust a stranger? What if it turns out the leaders are criminal psychopaths manipulating their cohorts to bring about confrontation and destabilisation in society?

    1. TimeMaster T
      Meh

      You trust strangers all the time.

      Do you personally know your current PM/President/Sultan/King/etc.?

      Will you vouch for their integrity in a court of law? Would you counter sign a loan for one of them or trust them with direct access to your bank accounts and credit cards. Would you let them babysit your child?

      "What if it turns out the leaders are criminal psychopaths manipulating their cohorts to bring about confrontation and destabilisation in society?"

      sounds like every world leader/politician I've heard of in the last 50 years

      1. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

        What if it turns out the leaders are criminal psychopaths manipulating their cohorts to bring about confrontation and destabilisation in society?

        The leaders of our governments are generally psychopaths. It's a requirement to make it that far in politics without!

        1. DropBear Silver badge

          "The leaders of our governments are generally psychopaths."

          Let me fix that for you: most anybody who's fairly well known is generally a psychopath*. A politician is just someone willing to use any means necessary to trample over other people in the pursuit of power after all; just as a successful entrepreneur / CEO is just someone willing to use any means necessary to trample over other people in the pursuit of money, and a celebrity is just someone willing to use any means necessary to trample over other people in the pursuit of fame (also money, hopefully). Arguably "sociopath" is more fitting but I'm not sure the distinction is really there. The thing is, people who think that the ends don't necessarily justify the means invariably fail to raise from the crowd - whenever interests are involved the law of the jungle rules supreme, and principles come with a cost...

          *okay, there are always exceptions like, say, Gandhi or Einstein - but I believe the point is valid...

          1. Fraggle850

            Psycopaths and sociopaths

            Actually, although the terms are often used interchangeably there is a strong technical distinction between the two. Sociopaths tend to be of lower intellectual capability and their resulting sadistic traits are due to environmental influences during their formative years, whereas psycopaths tend to have greater intellectual capabilities, with their lack of empathy being of a neurological nature rather than psychological. I guess you could charaterise it as nature versus nurture.

            I believe that this is the current thinking in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), although I got that interpretation from an article on the subject by a psychologist.

            1. KBeee

              Re: Psycopaths and sociopaths

              Yeah, but they're both cunts

      2. 's water music Silver badge

        You trust strangers all the time.

        Do you personally know your current PM/President/Sultan/King/etc.?

        Will you vouch for their integrity in a court of law? Would you counter sign a loan for one of them or trust them with direct access to your bank accounts and credit cards. Would you let them babysit your child?

        Well, I wouldn't want my PM babysitting one of my kids

        1. RandomFactor
          Joke

          @'s water music

          Or the head of the FTC over on this side of the pond now that i think about it :-)

          (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU&feature=youtu.be)

    2. veti Silver badge

      "Anonymous" isn't a political group, and it doesn't have "leaders".

      It's more of a herd thing, really, and it has bellwethers.

      1. Michael Hoffmann

        First thought you wrote "more of a nerd thing", then started to clean my glasses, then thought that either is true...

        1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          First thought you wrote "more of a nerd thing"

          I propose the Reg henceforth refer to a tweet from Anonymous as "the latest nerd herd word".

          Hmm. New subhead: "Nerd herd spurred, flips ISIS the bird".

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        This:

        "Anonymous" isn't a political group, and it doesn't have "leaders".

        It's more of a herd thing, really, and it has bellenders.

        TFTFY

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > Re: You trust strangers all the time.

      > Do you personally know your current PM/President/Sultan/King/etc.?

      I would not trust a stranger (someone not previously known to me) without some means of identifying them incase they betray my trust. Trust is built through interaction. I would not trust an anonymous person or group since they have nothing to lose.

      The same would apply to trusting people who don't know me, as their public persona could be a deception.

      > Re: "Anonymous" isn't a political group, and it doesn't have "leaders".

      So Anonymous isn't a political group, it just attacks political groups for entirely non-political reasons? By attacking the KKK and ISIS they are implicitly advocating a political view which is that those groups are not permitted independence (e.g. a separate state) while others implicitly are. If there is no consistent idea behind their attacks then their attacks are pointless and they have no moral basis to justify them. The only idea I have read that Anonymous believe is freedom of information - which is incidental to these attacks on political groups.

      Up 'til now Anonymous have attacked law-abiding organisations who would not retaliate in an unlawful way, but by attacking ISIS they have chosen to make enemies of people who don't respect our laws.

      Unlike other protest groups, Anonymous are provocative, they go beyond exercising freedom of thought and freedom of expression. They cross a moral and legal line. I'm not advocating anything, but if I were Anonymous, I would expect ISIS.

      1. veti Silver badge

        @ironically Anonymous Coward

        Your error is in seeing 'Anonymous' as a group. It just doesn't have that level of organisation.

        Think of 18th century pirates. Some of them would habitually get together into small fleets, but at other times each ship would sail independently. There were pirate havens, where they'd occasionally get together and hobnob and get their fix of land-borne necessities, but then they'd go their separate ways in search of separate targets.

        That's 'Anonymous'.

        There's no entry requirement, no membership roll, no exit process. And no leaders. To say that "Anonymous as a group is doing something" means no more than "a bunch of people have decided to do this, and they're calling themselves 'Anonymous'." Then the very next day, another group could get together with precisely the opposite aim in mind, and they could also call themselves "Anonymous", and there would be no way of telling - even for members of the groups themselves - which group had a better claim to the label.

        So if you persist in thinking of 'Anonymous' as a single group, there's no wonder its actions don't seem to make coherent sense.

  11. Steven Roper

    Cloudflare's CEO is right about one thing

    It is not Cloudflare's business to vet and make political decisions about the sites it hosts - any more than it is the business of the postal service to open people's letters to check for illegal content, or telcos to monitor phone calls. The moment we make carriage services liable for the content they transport we open a very dangerous and undesirable can of worms.

    I also stand very strongly for the right of freedom of speech, in fact standing for freedom is my highest ideal. But a line has to be drawn, and for me that line exists where one's speech advocates or enables taking freedom away from someone else. I hold that the right of free speech does not carry with it the right to take it away from others - or even to advocate taking it away. Freedom for one must by definition be freedom for all otherwise the entire concept becomes nonsensical.

    So sites that recruit or promote the cause of any group whose stated purpose is to impose violent control of others - and ISIS and its ilk very definitely fall into that category - are not, or should not be, "protected speech."

    However it is the role of law enforcement and and the judiciary to determine if a law has been broken, not carriage providers. Cloudflare have every right to host any site, no matter what its content, right up until the moment it is told to remove the site by a duly appointed and empowered legal authority that has followed due process to determine that the site breaks the law. And once that happens, only then should they remove it.

    1. Hazmoid

      Re: Cloudflare's CEO is right about one thing

      Hmm there are shades of grey there that need to be interpreted. The Postal service may not open parcels but they do provide access for screening by Customs and Border protection/Homeland Security. These authorities can then act on suspicion of intent to commit a crime. So in the same way Cloudflare can provide access to the appropriate authorities to screen material that is appearing on their servers.

    2. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: Cloudflare's CEO is right about one thing

      You're wrong in implying that it's OK to assist in illegal activity until a court order arrives. Businesses are obligated, by law, to know what they're doing. That closes a loophole where there's a massive asymmetry between initiating the crime and shutting down the crime - millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to produce and enforce a court order every time a criminal runs a script to set up shop.

      CloudFlare knowingly hosts phishing sites with fraudulent accreditation and certification badges. They knowingly host CAN-SPAM violators. They know they are hosting illegal telemarketers. They knowingly host sites making illegal calls for violence. The even blog about how they are assisting illegal activities with the stupid defense that somebody else will if they don't. For all the trouble I've had with their scammers, I won't shed a tear if lots of black trucks arrive and their whole operation and a few executives vanish.

      1. Bronek Kozicki Silver badge

        Re: Cloudflare's CEO is right about one thing

        Honestly, I'm am curious what the confrontation between CloudFlare and Anonymous will look like. Just hope they do not destabilise Internet infrastructure in the process.

      2. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: Cloudflare's CEO is right about one thing

        Makes one suspect that CloudFlare is a honeypot used by "other" interested parties...

        Let's hope so. Even if they don't think they are, and only care about money, they might be used as such anyway.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Send in the ferrets.

    Flush out the rats.

    1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      Re: Send in the ferrets.

      Hopefully before the ferrets decide that your fingers are more tasty than the rats..

  13. Patrick 17

    Anonymous (which'll now be known as the 72 virgins) look increasingly sillier with each attention seeking statement they put out. They're pointless and their attacks don't achieve anything. I wish the media would let them fizzle out in peace.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I wish the media would let them fizzle out in peace.

      They give ISIS 24/7 news coverage which will, in turn, make them want more media coverage, like any celebrity......keeping in the media front pages keeps your cause in view.

      This was part reason for the British banning IRA and suspected terrorists from appearing or talking to the media, whilst they could use an actor for voice, it also meant they could censor the dialogue.

      Perhaps less coverage of the "terrorists propaganda" (yes, quoting ISIS spokespersons and showing their online video's) and more coverage on the victim impact?

      1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        Re: I wish the media would let them fizzle out in peace.

        > Perhaps less coverage of the "terrorists propaganda" (yes, quoting ISIS

        Good luck with that in the Internet age. The IRA ban relied on the fact that most of the news organisations and media were directly or indirectly able to be influenced by the Government. That situation no longer applies.

    2. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

      I wish the media would let them fizzle out in peace.

      But if there was no anonymous , how would the middle class teenagers get to be big hard hooligans from the comfort of their own bedrooms?

  14. harryhedgehog

    The A Team

    As I read this article and felt the A-Team TV theme tune would have been a great accompaniment!

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Best sub-headline ever!

  16. Daz555

    72 virgins? According to Billy Connolly it was 53 virgins.....

    "53 f**king virgins! The very thought of 53 f**king virgins, it's a nightmare! It's not a f**king present, it's not a prize- it's a punishment! Give me 2 fire-breathing whores any day of the week."

  17. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

    "A website is speech. It is not a bomb. There is no imminent danger it creates and no provider has an affirmative obligation to monitor and make determinations about the theoretically harmful nature of speech a site may contain," said Cloudflare's CEO Matthew Prince at the time"

    Perhaps, being a CEO and all, this Prince should read up on the law?

    Most countries in the world have laws governing incitement to murder.

    Apart from that, many internet providers have additional minimum standards of conduct expected of their clients. The are not obliged to provide services to terrorist organisations. But I guess $19.99 per month is too much to resist.. (a figure I grasped from thin air because I'm lazy)

  18. lurker

    Cloudflare down

    Can't currently login to cloudflare's control panel. Looks like they are being DDOSed. Sigh.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Best sub-headline of the day!!

    Iain Thomson !! Bloody brilliant sub-line! I laughed my butt off at that one!

    I like the news I get here at El Reg, but sometimes I read the article titles simply for these little jewels!

    I'm not sure who comes up with them, but just so funny! Thanks for the chuckle!

    Oh, and by God I hope the Big A steals all those bastards identities!

    Viva La France!

  20. Danny 2 Silver badge

    Only 5 days older & I'm right-wing

    The Paris attacks changed me from afar, just because I'm worried about friends. I'm suddenly pro-war (well, pro that war), pro-arming of all British police (the ones who can pass a psych test at least), pro-internment of relatives of terrorists, pro-death penalty. I'm still against torture, but only because it doesn't work, not for any principled reason.

    I'm giving serious consideration to going to Iraq to fight and die for the Kurds once I'm free to. I'd be an utter liability, no army training and the heat alone would kill me, but... I learned how to fire a rifle when I was a kid, have some electronics and computing ability, and I am happy as any Daesh moron to die for my god, Satre. I do realise I'm being even more ridiculous than Anonymous are, without their excuse of youth but I would sign up for any volunteer Dad's Army/ International Brigade.

  21. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

    Talking of violnt retaliation

    http://biblehub.com/aramaic-plain-english/proverbs/29.htm

    Missing the point as usual is the freeloading bulshit brigaid that has been reported non stop since the attack all neatly forgetting that the bragging about phone signals the day before has just been proven silly

    http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-14.htm

    1. Danny 2 Silver badge

      Re: Talking of violnt retaliation

      "I'm afraid I'll have to let some of you go. The people are complaining about excess prophets"

      (A huge pdf for an 'Omni' cartoon joke that you can probably imagine without the download)

      That's the thing with prophecy though, it's best served with hind-sight or else it is just a PLOT SPOILER. I was disappointed to learn today that I'm a glummer doom-monger than even Daesh are, they expect another four Caliphs before the 'end-times'. Hopefully in quick succession, we are allegedly down to our last pope. Nostradamus said in a letter to his son that only one person would ever understand his prophecies, and no wonder since William McGonagle wrote better verse.

      I am living proof that Daniel is an arse, I'd sort of hoped for Luke and ended up as Samson, now Job.

      I predicted yesterday I'd be in prison today, all the signs pointed that way and I tried my best, yet I was wrong yet again. I'm not suffering from a Cassandra complex, true but unbelieved, everything I predict is immediately proven wrong as if by divine intervention. "As if by magic", said Mr Benn. As if.

      I know one way how to respond to your "Daniel 11:14" that you'll understand. Cheer up, "Daniel 11:15".

      Have you even seen Dr Who? Or read Jean Paul Satre? Broaden your visions.

      72 hours on the Virgin tech support line.

    2. Fraggle850

      @ I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects Re: Talking of violnt retaliation

      Those quotes from the book of fairy stories shed no light on your garbled message, please clarify for those of us who choose not to inhabit the middle ages.

  22. Danny 2 Silver badge

    Paris pal anecdote

    I'm looking in particulary for a persian doctor who used to volunteer at that theatre over a decade ago, and the guy who introduced us.

    His name at the time was Ahmed, he changed it when his white French wife gave birth "to stop dog shit being put through our letter box" in the posh apartment they lived in. I hate to think what it's like for them now assuming he is okay. He told me a lovely story though that's worth sharing.

    His father brought him and his brother and mother to Paris when he was a toddler, because his communist grandfather had shot the local Imam in Algeria.

    As children they'd ask their dad, "Papa, why can't we go to the mosque with all the other children?"

    "Because we worship your mother, she is our only god we have to obey, and so going to a mosque would be blasphemous".

    Even as an adult he still wouldn't go inside a mosque for fear of his life, though he insisted I did to see how beautiful it was. He explained, there wasn't just the religious tradition to arabs, there was the wine and song and poetry tradition. Me and him got drunk on Scotch and were the first people to translate this into English: Give me the Flute - Gibran Khalil Gibran

    "

    Give me the flute, and sing

    immortality lies in a song

    and even after we’ve perished

    the flute continues to lament

    "

    Although our translation suffered from our whisky, hence the link.

  23. Micha Roon
    Stop

    Vigilantism with public approval is still vigilantism

    Illegal actions even with good intent is still illegal and must be prosecuted. The resources of the states are spread thin enough to not put more strain on them by attacking arbitrary targets.

    Super heroes must stay in comic books and movies. This is real life

  24. Joe Gurman

    Speech

    ""A website is speech. It is not a bomb." Pretty clearly, Mr. Prince is unfamiliar with Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Schenk v. United States (1920), in which Justice Holmes wrote in the unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court that, "[T]he First Amendment could not be understood to provide an absolute right, and would not protect a person 'falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.'"

    I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, but people with assault rifles and explosives, and an announced intention to murder innocent citizens of a democracy, would appear to present a somewhat greater threat than the fellow falsely shouting fire in a theater (or the antiwar and anti-defat activists in Schenk). It follows that providing them with a soapbox is not an exercise of a right, but a commercial decision trading monetary gain for spreading terror.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020