I saw that there isn't a thread about it. Anyway, I think that Israel won most than anyone else because that it shows that Isael isn't the one pressurising the US into attacking Iran.
Don't you just love it when Anonymous bands together and puts it's mind to something? It's a rather beautiful sight to see so many Anons working together to achieve a goal.
Everyone is Anonymous, Anonymous is not everyone. That is the beauty behind Anonymous. Anyone who does not associate a name with themselves are anonymous. The only reason we, on Armorgames, are not Anonymous is because we created an online persona attached to a name that we created. We all have our own opinions.
If 1, 10, 100, or 1000 Anonymous forms an attack, that does not mean everyone who is Anonymous is behind it. It merely gives such an impression. Soldiers march in single file to hide their numbers, in such a way anonymous hides themselves in a crowd where everyone wears the same face.
NoNameC68 I they're persona is "Anonymous" and Anons are people that participate in said attack so it is everyone. You don't see people saying 4chan or eBaum's World are attacking website because that just where most people who participate in attacks hang out.
Also when Anon forms an attack that is a DDoS you can bet that they have alot of people behind it. Since that's the only way of succeeding to take down a website is by spamming the bandwidth of the web-servers till they cannot continue to support the website and it goes down.
For a couple bored people on the Internet they are highly effective and when they say they are going to do something they go out and actually do it.
I was really hoping some of these Wikileak documents would mention 9/11 events.
Well, they did release a 1.4gig text document with an aes256 encryption. Maybe it's nothing, but maybe there's something about 9/11 in there.. JFK anybody??
Watch the full version if you have the time. First, they're killing armed individuals, then civilians, they chased them in apaches and slaughtered them.
The people that were killed were in a war zone deemed appropriate for military conflict. They knew what they were getting into. Also, they didn't "chase" the civilians, they were hunting a group of armed militants and the civilians got in the way. In the video one guy says, "They shouldn't have brought their kid to a war." Kinda sums it up.
I know this has nothing to do with any current discussions, but my History class was talking about this the other day, and my teacher was talking about how wiki-leaks is causing a lot of damage to the US government, and someone in my class (and my class is full of very, very dumb people by the way, that don't belong in higher level classes) said "That's awesome!" about the situation, and it was an unbelievably stupid thing to say. That's basically it.
I have a question, and I'm going to get hell for asking this, but I'm curious. How can America promote freedom of the press, yet shut down, or attempt to shut down wikileaks? Is the idea more of "Freedom of the good press"?
they're persona is "Anonymous" and Anons are people that participate in said attack so it is everyone.
everyone who participated in the attack. I am anonymous, and I sure as hell had nothing to do with it. What about you? Anonymous is not a group where everyone agrees with each other and often they disagree with one another. As I said before, anonymous is made up of hundreds of thousands of people, and those who take action are hidden within those thousands.
Everyone is anonymous, anonymous is not everyone. Anonymous attacked Scientology, but despite teh huge numbers most members of Anonymous were not involved. Anonymous works by one anonymous idea taking light and whoever wants to latch on, latches on. Everyone is anonymous, so there's no way to tell who and how many.
This isn't a war it's slaughter and arrogance at it's worst.
It's still war...
You can't fight a war without civilian casualties. I'm not saying the deaths are justified, the whole war is bogus, but that IS how war is fought. You can either be for the war, or against it, but you can't be for it as long as innocent people don't get hurt, because that will not happen.
For a couple bored people on the Internet they are highly effective and when they say they are going to do something they go out and actually do it.
Most people who considers themselves anonymous are 14 year olds to 18 year olds who do little more than troll. Needless to say, there are many people who try to start things that never come to light. You wouldn't know about them because they never came to light.
Anonymous is merely a crowd to hide in, not a whole entity that acts as one whole, as many falsely believe. Picture thousands of people with masks. You know some of them are involved with certain events, but you don't know which ones or how many.
everyone who participated in the attack. I am anonymous, and I sure as hell had nothing to do with it. What about you? Anonymous is not a group where everyone agrees with each other and often they disagree with one another. As I said before, anonymous is made up of hundreds of thousands of people, and those who take action are hidden within those thousands.
Everyone is anonymous, anonymous is not everyone. Anonymous attacked Scientology, but despite teh huge numbers most members of Anonymous were not involved. Anonymous works by one anonymous idea taking light and whoever wants to latch on, latches on. Everyone is anonymous, so there's no way to tell who and how many.
Uhhg you don't get it here "As an Internet meme it represents the concept of many online community users, or the online community itself, acting anonymously in a coordinated manner, usually toward a loosely self-agreed goal." being anonymous is only a small part of anon. They call themselves anonymous but but that's just a small facet of what they are. Anonymity was most likely born out of necessity of the companies and groups they protest against seeking repercussion towards them or individual members.
I loathe the submit buttons placement near the bottom of the page.
You can't fight a war without civilian casualties. I'm not saying the deaths are justified, the whole war is bogus, but that IS how war is fought. You can either be for the war, or against it, but you can't be for it as long as innocent people don't get hurt, because that will not happen.
Yeah but I'm really just fixated on how this war could be justified in killing of innocent people. I understand other wars could, like WWII but not this one.
many people who try to start things that never come to light. You wouldn't know about them because they never came to light.
Oh when they want to they do. I've frequented 4chan for a bit in the past and when they decide to they can be very coordinated. Also more than a few of the members are above the age 20. I would say anon is on average 16-17 years of age. They might individually not pose much of a threat but that "low orbit ion cannon" is a beast when alot of people use it at once, at one target. Also their goals are usually altruistic in some sense. For example they hunted down and individual who was hurting cat/cats and reported it to the police in the area.
Anonymous is merely a crowd to hide in, not a whole entity that acts as one whole, as many falsely believe. Picture thousands of people with masks. You know some of them are involved with certain events, but you don't know which ones or how many.
But even simple uncoordinated systems display coordination at times. Crowds are not as simple as you believe they are. Also it's easy to guess that there are thousands of people because DDoS Mastercards servers takes alot of people.
I understand other wars could, like WWII but not this one.
What's the difference? Were 1940's civillians bad people? And what reasons or solutions can you come up with that will keep any and all civillians from getting hurt or killed, while at the same time, effectively defeating the enemy?
What's the difference? Were 1940's civillians bad people? And what reasons or solutions can you come up with that will keep any and all civillians from getting hurt or killed, while at the same time, effectively defeating the enemy?
I was referring to the justifiability of said wars. Not whether killing civilians were deemed appropriate by the situation.
See there is a difference between accidental or necessary deaths then purposely targeting unarmed civilians.
I don't like wikileaks because they published that list of vulnerable places and then terrorists will know which places to make go BOOM! I think this Julian Assange guy is crazier then Hitler in terms of not caring about his country.
