Hackivist:Left wing script kiddy

I went to visit HackThisSite.org today and I noticed this link:

http://www.freejeremy.com/

And started to read it. I’ve also noticed in the past that a lot of the challenges seem to be about defacing web pages that far lefters don’t like. Is it just me, or does Hackivist usually translate to script kiddy with a left wing political agenda? My own leanings are more libertarian, but when these guys (freejeremy.com) talk about the right and pages like protestwarrior.com the Hackivist’s stuff sounds more like hate speech than anything said by protestwarrior.com.

May take on it is something like this: The right will take away your rights to protect you from others, the left will take away your rights to protect you from yourself. I find the second far more patronizing (but I don’t like either).

So, is this Jeremy guy getting shafted, or did he just get in trouble for violating someone else’s rights to free speech?

Here is the other folks side of it:

http://www.protestwarrior.com/newsletters/07_05_05.php

Quote:

---

So, is this Jeremy guy getting shafted, or did he just get in trouble for violating someone else’s rights to free speech?

---

Neither. The FBI and Secret Service don't have the time to waste on silly little leftie skiddies. They would not have arrested him if there wasn't a case to answer, and a damn good one at that. The key would seem to be the credit card, and personal identity data.

I may sound cynical, but money talks louder than civil liberties or politics.

Well, it certainly does over here :eek:

my initial thoughts on it

You're right Nhil, skiddie or outright thief. anything under $5,000 here in the U.S. and the feds don't give a damn

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nihil
Neither. The FBI and Secret Service don't have the time to waste on silly little leftie skiddies. They would not have arrested him if there wasn't a case to answer, and a damn good one at that. The key would seem to be the credit card, and personal identity data.

I may sound cynical, but money talks louder than civil liberties or politics.

Well, it certainly does over here :eek:

my initial thoughts on it

---

Point taken, the feds are involved because of the money, I was just thinking of the hypocrisy of this guy when it came to free speech. He seems to think everyone should be free so speak their minds, as long as they don’t disagree with him.

Yes Irongeek , there is that aspect to it:

Quote:

---

I was just thinking of the hypocrisy of this guy when it came to free speech. He seems to think everyone should be free so speak their minds, as long as they don’t disagree with him.

---

But hasn't that been the case in politics since the time of the Roman Forum?..........." you don't agree with me, so go drink hemlock", the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the English Civil War.........that is why we call them "extremists"

I think that he and his supporters are very foolish in playing the "politics card". That leaves the Feds and prosecutors with no choice but to go for a big time conviction. Otherwise they send the message to all other crackpot organisations that this is condonable activity and an acceptable way to raise funds.
:eek:

Hey Hey,

Thanks for the links to the sites, definately gave me a laugh.. especially ProtestWarrior...

This is more a cosmos type thread than a GCC and I think it could lead to some interesting conversations... I'm against computer crime... but when it's places like ProtestWarrior... I don't feel bad about it happening... it actually makes me smile... the right is all about oppression, it's a side of politics that just shouldn't exist... I figure if those people that were supporting ProtestWarrior did have thousands of dollars or millions of dollars worth of charges racked up on their site they deserve it as punishment for their belief system... (Does that about some up the I'm ok with anything as long as you agree with me system?) I think the extreme right is more of a detriment to society than any other group. Terrorists are usually the extreme right... so I say that we class ProtestWarrior.com as terrorists and treat them as we treat terrorism.

At the same time, the moral side of me says that Jeremy is getting what he deserves for breaking the law (even if I do agree with his beliefs)..

Anyways... now that I've started a war (Sorry for the thread hijack IronGeek but my belief is that this is what the thread centers around in one way or another).... Let's move this to Cosmos.... heh :)

Peace,
HT

HTRegz have you become an Australian? because you must be standing on your head to think that: :D

Quote:

---

Terrorists are usually the extreme right

---

In reality, terrorists are usually the extreme left the have not, jealous, wannabees.

Typically anarchists, but also embracing Trotskyists and some ultra left Marxists.

1. London, Sydney Street seige 1911.......................anarchists
2. England 1960's, "The Angry Brigade"....................anarchists
3. Europe 1960's - 1970's, Baader-Meinhoff Gang.....anarchists
4. Afghanistan, The Taliban........................................anarchists
5. Al Quaeda...............................................................anarchists

Anyone see a pattern?

:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nihil
HTRegz have you become an Australian? because you must be standing on your head to think that: :D



In reality, terrorists are usually the extreme left the have not, jealous, wannabees.

Typically anarchists, but also embracing Trotskyists and some ultra left Marxists.

1. London, Sydney Street seige 1911.......................anarchists
2. England 1960's, "The Angry Brigade"....................anarchists
3. Europe 1960's - 1970's, Baader-Meinhoff Gang.....anarchists
4. Afghanistan, The Taliban........................................anarchists
5. Al Quaeda...............................................................anarchists

Anyone see a pattern?

:)

---

Hey Hey,

Makes sense I guess.... My belief is that Terrorists want their ways left alone.... Take terrorist attacks on the US... why do they happen.. because the US sticks their nose where it doesn't belong and causes problems...Trying to change things.... They're trying to stop the change and maintain control. To me that not wanting change is a very conservative view.. hense the right wing...

I guess it depends on what they're trying to accomplish... or it can be summbed up with anarchists... but I think that sometimes the terrorism is justified in that they're trying to prevent their ways from being changed... but that's a completly different topic..

If someone came and told me that Canada couldn't have a Prime Minister anymore... that we were going to get an Outside Dictator and that all our laws and beliefs were going to change... I'd fight that... I'd be inclined to kill innocent people in the outside country but the fact that I don't want my country to change is a fairly conservative view... If I was liberal, I'd want change in my country..

I dunno.. maybe that's my way of looking at things and that's why I disagree with so many people when it comes to politics.

Peace,
HT

Hi HT~

Quote:

---

I dunno.. maybe that's my way of looking at things and that's why I disagree with so many people when it comes to politics.

---

Quote:

---

To me that not wanting change is a very conservative view.. hense the right wing...

---

That is where I think you are going astray? a "conservative" is generally opposed to change, they support the laissez faire, status quo view. That tends to leave them somewhere in the middle, and explains why in two or three party systems the balance of power changes at election time, because they shift allegiance. In reality, conservatives, liberals and socialists are all "centrists"

Now, if you look at the extreme right wing (fascists and the like) you have people who want change . They like order, control, discipline, death squads, concentration camps, juntas, military coups and so on. Terrorism by its very nature is cellular and autonomous, things hated by fascists; insurgency is more the tool of the extreme right because it is controlled and centrally organised.

It is a bit like statistics, and the "normal distribution"............68% lie in the middle, and we tend to microanalise them into left and right wing. In reality, the "wings" are the 32% in the outer quartiles?

just a few thoughts :)

I think at this point many of the terms have lost any meaning. Right wing, left wing, conservative and liberal all have little meaning now, their just terms thrown around to label people instead of their ideas. People are still pack animals and want to be able to have the idea of them vs us. There are conservatives want change, liberals you love to take away rights (2nd amendment anyone?), over here the socialists are considered left wing and over in the former USSR they were considered right. Right wing, left wing, conservative and liberal are terms like the word “hacker” they have different meanings to different folks.

Hey Hey,

I think that IronGeeks hit the nail on the head.

My guess is that 20-30 years ago (I've got no way of knowing this for sure) but that there was a pretty clear cut line between the sides. Now there isn't.... The political spectrum is askew, people want to keep adding new axes to it to the point where it's more complex than most the structure of most molecules (What are we up to now anyways, like 15 possible axes... could you image a 15 dimentional object). So what's the new thought, come up with new models... So now you've got political models like the Eysenck Model, the Nolan Chart, the Political Compass and the Pournelle Chart. Others even print their own political models giving their own variation or twist on the subject.

I think someone needs to sit down and create a uniform model that covers all the -isms.

Peace,
HT

Posted by Nihil
In reality, terrorists are usually the extreme left the have not, jealous, wannabees.

Typically anarchists, but also embracing Trotskyists and some ultra left Marxists.

1. London, Sydney Street seige 1911.......................anarchists
2. England 1960's, "The Angry Brigade"....................anarchists
3. Europe 1960's - 1970's, Baader-Meinhoff Gang.....anarchists
4. Afghanistan, The Taliban........................................anarchists
5. Al Quaeda...............................................................anarchists


Ok a correction on this Al Quaeda is not an anarchist organization nor is the Talan. Yes they are extremists but they are by no means anarchists. You say that terrorists are the have nots but the Talaban ruled Afganastan. Anarchists don't want any government but the above mentioned orginizations want it there way or no way.


I would also like to say that if you look at the free jeremy site a little more you wil notice that the afidavit that establishees probable cause is nowhere to be seen. This means that they could have in theory used the USA PATRIOT act to sieze and detain him without any proof.

Quote:

---

because the US sticks their nose where it doesn't belong and causes problems...Trying to change things....

---

That's the on going assumption. But in reality help me understand what we are trying to change? Do you even know when and why Al-Quida initiated their Holy Wars against the west?

Quote:

---

Ok a correction on this Al Quaeda is not an anarchist organization nor is the Talan.

---

OH really? perhaps you would be so beneficient as to edify us ignorami...............post the manifestos of Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

:rolleyes: :D

Here is a brief snipet of what al qeada stands for.

Does al-Qaeda have a charter or manifesto?
In an al-Qaeda house in Afghanistan, New York Times reporters found a brief statement of the “Goals and Objectives of Jihad”:

Establishing the rule of God on earth
Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God
Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity

originally from http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/alqaeda2.html

Sorry Gir,

I looked it up...and it wasn't easy to find...according to their official site Al Quaeda stands for :

' Too cowardly to attack anything remotely able to fight back '

Eg ;)

Oh, really?

Quote:

---

Establishing the rule of God on earth

---

Quote:

---

Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God

---

Quote:

---

Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity

---

And that is the will of Allah?

This just in!

The real definition of Al-Quaeda:

A
L oad of

Queer
Uglies
And
Extremely
Dumb
Anarchists!

an·ar·chist
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kist, -"när-
Function: noun
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
- anarchist or an·ar·chis·tic /"a-n&r-'kis-tik, -(")när-/ adjective

definition from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...y&va=anarchist

Now for Al Qeada and the Talaban to be anarchists they would have to fit this description right well neither organization fits it.
The Talaban established control of afganastan trying to establish a ruling power.
Al Qeadawants to establish the rule of god on earth which to do so they would have to form some sort of rule over teh people to impose gods laws.

Now as for the last part of the definition if you only took that at face value then yes they would be considered anarchist but they are not just trying to overthrow the geverning power the are also trying to establish their own ruling body.




As for your post who said anything about the will of Allah. But yes they do believe that they are doing the will of Allah.

Gir,

The fact is that : any body whether it be a body of one or a body of thousands...that purposely TARGETS non-military objectives...putting the lives of INNOCENT PEOPLE/NON-COMBATANTS in extreme jeopardy or peril...

are COWARDS and TERRORISTS !

Maybe we should consider a page out of the Isreali handbook...imprison the families of these Terrorists and destroy their homes and possessions so they have nothing to go back to...maybe it will make them think twice about the consequences of their actions.

Eg ;)

Oh I agree they are terrosist and they should not be tolerated.
I was just trying to make a small correction that was all but meaningless and was called an ignoramus for it. I felt the need to defend my self. I am sorry for getting us so far off topic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Egaladeist
Gir,

The fact is that : any body whether it be a body of one or a body of thousands...that purposely TARGETS non-military objectives...putting the lives of INNOCENT PEOPLE/NON-COMBATANTS in extreme jeopardy or peril...

are COWARDS and TERRORISTS !

Maybe we should consider a page out of the Isreali handbook...imprison the families of these Terrorists and destroy their homes and possessions so they have nothing to go back to...maybe it will make them think twice about the consequences of their actions.

Eg ;)

---

Hey Hey,

Why does the word purposely have to be in front of targets? Either way... I'd say that based on your first paragraph the American Military would fall in as both Cowards and Terrorists... They definately put innocent people's lives in extreme jeopardy or peril.

Peace,
HT

Hi HT,

That is the purpose for the word ' purposely ' or intentionally...I would agree with you if I thought that the US military ' purposely/intentionally targets non-combatants...friendly fire and mistakes are bound to occur, but I don't think there is an intent on the part of the US military to target civilians.

Eg ;)

Hi Gir,

No one called ' you ' an ignoramous...nihil was suggesting you were suggesting we were...you need to stop skimming posts.

Eg ;)

You are correct there EG~ An anarchist is technically one who opposes central government, a terrorist is one who carries out atrocities and random murder....................then you get revolutionaries, freedom fighters, insurgents and the lot in the middle.

If you look at political systerms you will see that "anarchism" goes back over 2,000 years, and there were no terrorists then (apart from the mother in law :D )

My comments on the Taliban, were based on the facts that they were loosely knit bands of local militia and government..........................no central control/ruler..............a classic anarchist government.

As for the rest, they are anarchistical insofar as they wish to bring down the current "traditional" regime............but they have nothing to replace it with?.......................

:)

People seem to forget or don't realize that these "freedom" fighters are expert fascists.