17 thoughts on “The Anon Legion Vendetta

  1. “In a time of universal deceit, speaking the truth is in itself a revolutionary act.” — Orwell

    I’ve a feeling we’re going to get pretty cozy with those words – at least, those of us who Stayed Awake in Class.

    We are entering a dark time, where it is no longer safe to sit on the fence.

    We are going to have to pick a side. It’s time.

  2. What a great article Karlsie! Lots of juicy tidbits there that should be disseminated so people can see just how corrupt these governments are. It doesn’t really matter whether you’re Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. If you think WikiLeaks should be shut down or Assange should be prosecuted then you’re a piece of Nazi shit. These same idiot TV commentators or magazine writers that call for Assange to be assassinated were living in Nazi Germany rooting on the holocaust. The same people who claim he should be prosecuted for national security reasons (or any other bullshit reason) were in Nazi Germany “just following orders.” Yeah, why bother publicizing the holocaust? It’s no one else’s business right? Why put people at risk? Why risk it? Don’t we owe allegiance to our country? Not if you’re doing something illegal.

    My question is, if these people (politicians, journalists, government defenders) are so adamant about putting someone to death for speaking the truth and betraying their country….are these same people also willing to be tried in a life or death court case for spinning the truth and contributing to murderous propaganda?

    I like your V for Vendetta analogy. The biggest threat to cases like this? Ordinary people not caring. Merchant services not caring. Maybe now you’ll take notice when you’re framed for terrorist activity or when your assets are suddenly frozen. Oh yes, Anonymous is a terrorist group. And I’m not saying it’s the “right thing” to do, to cyber-attack civilians. But terrorism is the natural consequence of a corrupt government…the consequences you call upon yourself for being a bastard in the first place.

    The young warriors of today may be hiding behind a keyboard because of a lack of brains and social skills but they do have a rebellious, fearless streak just the same. It’s no wonder the world has provoked them…they took away the one, lonely thing Generation Y had going for itself….freedom of speech on the Internet. A virtual wasteland of history and commentary, the human right to congregate, to right to speak off the record and on your private PC.

    The very idea of the government violating that sacred trust is just appalling. Shame on the Obama administration for learning NOTHING from Bush’s hypocrisy.

  3. Will, i’m sure you remember the little exercise i gave our writers when we first began putting this magazine together. I asked them to define their spiritual; as opposed to religious; beliefs. While some floundered over defining spiritual, i had a singular focus. I suspected then that the general trend was moving away from a live and let live attitude, and toward legal guidelines that would restrict free movement and penalize or condemn specific behaviors and cultural/ ethnic groups. I wanted to know how strong each moral compass was because i felt and continue to feel what is legal will not always be lawful, and that there will be many times the right choice will not be the legal choice. Our convictions will be tested, again and again.

    Mitch, i agree. Those who would cover the truth or cannot bear to look at the truth are Nazi’s. Those who sit quietly by and do nothing to protest the injustices being committed by the US Government, are accomplices to the Nazi’s. They are as guilty as the citizens who did nothing when their neighbors were robbed of their homes and livelihoods, thrown into prisons than gas chambers, because they were Jews.

    I was impressed with some of the more informative sites of the anon legion. These kids are on the ball. While i suspect some simply like the radical aspect of making penis jokes, i saw in others a driving need to expose injustices. I don’t think they are going to be a do nothing generation. I see them moving in a clear direction, one that suggests they want to take control over their future.

    The future is in their hands. We should be supportive. A cyber war is far less painful than a physical battle. Their attack was a deliberate calculation to bring attention to the demise of Julian Assange and for the illegal incarceration of Bradley Manning. Their strategy was good and accomplished more than three days of rioting in London could have done.

  4. [Quote=The Late Mitchell Warren]Oh yes, Anonymous is a terrorist group. And I’m not saying it’s the “right thing” to do, to cyber-attack civilians. But terrorism is the natural consequence of a corrupt government…the consequences you call upon yourself for being a bastard in the first place. [/quote]

    “Terrorism” is an illusion – there is no such thing as “terrorism” or “terrorists” until a social establishment defines the idea into being. Also, the notions of “right” and “wrong” are also social constructs: they don’t exist until society defines them.

    With that in mind, these guys at Anonymous are only “terrorists” so long as the government says they are – meanwhile politicians that enact polcies that kill and surpress millions evey year are not “terrorists” because society does not designate them as such. Furthermore, the attacks on corporate infrastructure is “wrong” because the “law” deems it such: but the lethal policies previously mentioned are “right” simply because they are the “law.”

    Personally, I grow tiered of discussing events in terms of “right” and “wrong” or attempting to discern who the “terrorist” is – I’d prefer that people just admit that the established order does not have their interests at heart yet demand total compliance. In other words, any power that demands obedience and gives nothing in return does not give a flying fuck about you: therefore, if you are smart and think about yourself and yours first (which is natural), you will support (or at least offer no opposition to) those who fight against that power that seeks to control and enslave you – “terrorist” status be damned.

  5. Christopher, I was going by the literal definition of terrorist: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells. A group of dissidents opposed against a mainstream group, such as a country, and who uses fear tactics to get notice. A government like the US may well use terrorist tactics…but since they are the majority power, I wouldn’t call them a “radical” or a factionary group of terrorists. As far as morality goes, there is no right and wrong here. Terrorist groups think they are doing God’s work, the government thinks it’s promoting its own values. In the end, both sides hurt innocent people making them bloodguilty…if not “evil.”

    Of course, one then has to define bloodguilt…and according to the rule of the animal kingdom, it’s survival of the fittest so the point is moot.

    I guess the only question puzzling me at the moment is what’s the difference between a terrorist attack and a revolution? As I understand it…the difference is that a revolution is organized and a terrorist attack is just random, disorganized noise.

  6. I generally think of a terrorist as anyone who strikes terror at another; whether an individual or group; if the purpose is to strike fear, than the act was one of terrorism. The Anon Legion didn’t strike fear. At the most, it created a vexation and annoyance to its intended victims. The US may wish to label them terrorists, but their own aggressiveness toward opposition; foreign and domestic; is far more terrorizing.

    Revolutions do not always involve bloodshed. They entail the agreement of a large body of people to try something different. The industrial age was called the industrial revolution; new ideas, radical overhauls in education, business or policies are revolutionary. Social revolutions often dissolve into bloodshed when the opposition uses terrorist methods to abort them. It then becomes a chess game; terror for terror, tit for tat.

    A terrorist would have kidnapped a high official and tortured him or her in the same manner that Bradley Manning is being tortured. A revolutionary will attempt the most persuasive means available before resorting to violence; which is the reason so many writers are called revolutionary writers. They hope to persuade through the powers of reason. A revolutionary often has only the intent to defend his or her ideals, family and community against terrorist attacks on their well being.

    While we’re on the subject of definitions, i’d like to squabble over the use of “legal” and “lawful”. Lawful is the common agreement that comes from centuries of civilizations learning how best to maintain a harmonious community. Thus, laws such as theft, murder, intentional damage to your neighbor are considered common law jurisdiction. What is legal, however, is not always lawful. It’s legal for the department of transportation to take a portion of a citizen’s lawfully acquired property in the interest of eminent domain. It’s legal to arrest, detain, confiscate the belongings of a person suspected of selling illicit drugs but it’s not illegal for pharmaceutical companies to sell them. It’s legal to coerce people into contractual agreements, such as for insurance, education and a host of licensed applications, but it’s not necessarily lawful. Lawful is the agreed upon means people use to live together. Legal is the transactional agreement between businesses and governments. For trade and commerce, these legal documents are necessary for the smooth transference of goods, resources and labor. However, when the legalities are no longer beneficial for the citizens; when they in fact, step out of the boundaries of lawful conduct; then legalities are no longer a valid point.

  7. I share the view of “terrorism” that Glen Greenwald has – that the term is little more than a means for the establishment to demonize violence that does not work to its benefit, meanwhile providing a platform with which to justify its own violence in the eyes of the common people (see his presentation here: http://vimeo.com/16494687 ). Because the term is so sporadically applied to anything that the establishment considers violent, the term is essentially meaningless.

  8. Christopher, i clicked into the full article; i’m a glutton for research punishment. I found Greenwald’s words pretty agreeable; especially, quote; “The term terrorism…is being used to…erode and degrade and ultimately demolish this term…that was really intended to be crystal clear, which is civil liberties,” This is pretty much how i felt about the word terrorist as soon as it became a redundant part of the English language. Focusing on the definition, “a terrorist is anyone who strikes terror in me”, i rationed that Muslims, people of color, the homeless, the desperate, the hungry poor do not terrorize me. Even the drug cartels, the Mafia, the unidentified underground do not terrorize me. They live by the own laws. If you choose to step into their world, you choose to abide by them or face the consequences of violating them. What terrorizes me is the brutality of a government that breaks humanitarian laws, then hides behind legal shields of their own making. Their terror is in being brought for judgment by the masses.

  9. While I feel terror itself can be very real and employed to control, I do agree with Christopher. Terrorism is only a word and it only works if people are terrified. To that end, our own country terrifies us on a daily basis with threat levels, pat downs and scanners. Not to mention everyday news, speeches and laws.

    Ending terrorism is pretty simple, cease to be afraid. For that you need to put your house in order.

    But Anonymous I would not call a Terrorist group, nor would I say they have a “lack of brains or social skills” I think in fact they are simply very new at this and still working into what may become surprising. Also they are not strictly political. Although they did send letters to the Austrailian PM and others over censorship. They also attacked the Church of Scientology over their mistreatment and brainwashing and killing of youth in their centres of learning. That was in no way political. But it does point to maybe where some people involved come from.

  10. Great piece, Karla. Let’s consider another form of net terrorism: the horrible decision recently by the FCC in the U.S. to kinda/ sorta “protect” net neutrality. It’s censorship by any other name, as your article clearly articulates.

  11. If parts of our government and military are as backwards as we see in WikiLeaks, then I have NO problem with that being made public. If you don’t want dodgy actions to be brought to the public’s attention, then don’t do them in the first place.

  12. Pingback: Buy Facebook Fan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.