Anonymous and LulzSecurity Declare WAR on Governments, Banks and other Big Businesses

56olddog, you stated this: "The unfortunate truth is that much of the world’s population has neither the knowledge nor the ability to get along without a great deal of support from the existing infrastructure. Demonstrably, many can’t take care of themselves even with full support of the system." THAT STATEMENT IS FALSE!

 

True. I didn't really consider the fact that closed networks would be extremely hard to hack into and backed up to boot. However, I am curious as to where they're going to go with this. They announced they have 3 stages of the plan, so this flexing of muscle, this damage of confidence in the Internet is only the first stage. If they stopped at that stage I don't think they would really make much of a difference in the long run because most people are too caught up in their own lives to pay any attention to a group of hackers who are bringing down websites. In order to cause any kind of real disruption they're going to have to take it to another level. I wonder where they are planning to go with everything.

 

Where I think they're going with this..... Wikileaks waits for people to send information, these guys are going to go out and get the information like an investigative journalist does.

 

Wooooooooooo... And just because you say it is, right? Hahahahaha

 

Did you read the quote in my post? Or, any of several more in this thread? Duh!

 

You've implied the same so right back acha! Your statement was false. I have traveled extensively and am basing my opinion on meeting people from all ove the world. What are you basing yours on?

 

I read them all. I'm telling you that the purpose of what the two groups are doing is to raise awareness and to be heard. They want to fix what is broken. Not tear down the infrastructure. Fix what is wrong with it.

 

We must have seen a different bunch of folks. What I saw, and still see everyday, are people who certainly can't grow their own food (for one reason or another), who must have roads, telephone, internet, processed fuels (gasoline, deisel...), healthcare, housing, water supply, waste disposal... I could go on and on... either provided or within easy reach. All of those things are either a part of the infrastruture or highly dependent on it. Most people in the world do not know how to function without those things. Most don't have the ability. Can they learn how? Can they develope the ability? Maybe. The real question may be: do they want to?

Then there's those who can't or won't apply themselves sufficiently to earn a living to support themselves or their families -- who must depend on whatever government program is available for that support. In some areas, such continues generation after generation until it's part of the culture.

I have seen the proof of my statement.

 

Again olddog, where did anyone say that they want to bring down the infrastructure? Where did you come up with people taking out the water supply, needing to grow their own food? What the hell are you talking about? You sound like the feds who spread crap about abbie hoffman. The people who are hacking these sites have already said what they want. They want to be heard. They want change. So again I ask, what the hell are you talking about? I am getting a kick out of your paranoid ramblings you pull from left field. Have you done any research here or have you only read this discussion forum?

 

Since I am not a party to the inner workings of either of the two groups, I cannot know what their true intents and purposes really are. What you say in that regard may be true -- I will neither totally accept it as fact nor dispute it. However, as in my original post, many supporters of the "cyber revolution" certainly appear to advocate total destruction of the infrastructure or in the least what will lead to that. The post I originally responded to and another by Meliai -- both, obviously advocate something more that creating an awareness.


I fail to see how any interruption of access to government sites will help anyone -- especially in cases of those trying to access those sites for some sort of support from the existing infrastructure. Granted some sites allegedly "attacked" were either PR or econonic sites of little or no consequences.

 

Jharyn

So why not respond to my answer to your post disputing my original statement. 'Don't have an answer for it? I didn't think so.

Your tactic here, is as old as they get: disagree with the message, just attack the messenger.

 

I have not attacked you in any way. I have not read anything from anyone except you in regards to bringing the infrastructure down. What question have I not responded to?

 

Bringing these sites down has raised awareness. It has worked, they are front page news. That was the intention and it has worked.

 

"paranoid ramblings", "left field", "what the hell are you talking about": all disparaging terms. If you will read the post of 'mustlivelife' that I originally responded to and a couple of other posts in this thread, I believe that you will see that some posters/supporters of the "cyber revolution" do, indeed, advocate more than "creating an awareness". While it may or may not be the intent and purpose of those allegedly perpetrating the "attacks" it is certainly advocated by supporters of the attacks -- here and in other venues.

I posted a response to your dispute of a statement in my original post. That response was in support of my original statement as you so eloquently requested. Rather than reply to that post, your response was a disparaging rant in regard to a different portion of my original post. My question was "why not respond to my answer...". I did not expect an answer to that question -- my expectation was fulfilled.

 

The people responsible for these hacks are not posting in this thread as far as we know. They have spoken of their intentions and motivations for months. That information is in all forms of the media who are allowed to publish it. I have been following this and have asked you where you got the information about these hacks. You have never answered other than to reply about a few other misinformed people who have posted once or twice in this thread. It is not advocated by supporters of these hacks. (they are not attacks! they are hacks. there is a big difference) There are a few in this thread I agree. But the majority of people who are aware of what is going on are not advocating anything even remotely like you or any of the few in this thread are discussing.

 

Again, what was the "answer" that I did not respond to? There's 14 pages here, throw me a bone. What did I not respond to?

 

I want to add. I am not attacking you. You and a few in this thread are misinformed. I was and am, just trying to clear up a few misconceptions about the motivations behind these hacks as well as the majority of comments I've seen from supporters of this cause on numerous discussion forums over the last few weeks.

 

Jharyn, try to follow this:

I understand what the people responsible have stated as their intents and purposes.

I do not necessarily believe or disbelieve what they have stated as their intents and purposes.

Your questions were:

1) "Where did you come up with people taking out the water supply, needing to grow their own food?" Answer: I was responding to your dispute of a statement in my original post. Water and food supply are parts of infrastructure. A particular poster indicated that he wished such would collapse.

2) "What the hell are you talking about?" Please see answer to 1) above

3) "Have you done any research here or have you only read this discussion forum?" Answer: Yes, I have done research. No, I haven't only read this discussion forum.

Destruction of the infrastructure IS advocated by some supporters, be they accurately informed or otherwise. You've agreed to that.

The term "attack" was/is used by the OP of this thread ("Skip") -- you can take up the terminology issue with him. It matters not to me.

So we agree: some are advocating more than just "creating awareness".

I do not claim that the groups responsible for any action (satisfied) are intent on destroying the infrastructure. My post (to which you first repsonded) was in disagreement with a poster who seemed to advocate such destruction.

At present, I am not discussing anything, in this thread, with anyone other than you. Maybe 'mustlivelife' will respond to my post and he and I can have a reasonable discussion -- agreement or disagreement is not important -- I think he will understand what I'm saying.

OK, again, try to follow this.


Your post was:

My response:

Your post:

My response: (to your dispute of my statement regarding the world's population having neither the knowledge nor the ability... You asked, in a subsequent post what I was basing my opinion on. Here's why I think most of the world's population cannot get along without support of the existing infrastucture -- that is what you disputed. Right?)

Your post: (completely out of context with the "discussion")

My response:

And then:

So there. Didn't I provide what you asked for. So why go into the rant when it was not I that wanted the destruction of the infrastucture. And, I was NOT indicating that I thought this was the purpose for the HACKS.

OK. I accept that you are not attacking me -- or even hacking me.

Am I misinformed? 'Could be. Even though I have read everything I can find on the matter and watched several videos.

Soooo, what you're sayin' is that quite a few may have misconceptions about the motivation for and the purpose of the HACKS. NO, no, please forget I asked.