Don't know why people throw up the word Nazi when they complain about human rights in Israel. They are a legit nation. Like most nations it was born from conflict and persecution of other people, like all nations it will defend itself from perceived threats.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter ...

My only issue is, why is it "patriotic" to go after someone who threatens Israel?   Did these guys do anything to threaten AMERICA?   Last I checked, patriotism is about defending AMERICA.  Let the Israeli patriots take care of Israel. 

I know it's maybe a stretch....but Alabama is in the USA [last I checked]...

Perhaps taking the threat seriously (based on past performance) and dealing with it might be a good thing. I somehow doubt that by neutralizing Anonymous we'll be doing harm to the world. Also, if nothing happens, I'm sure we'll all be relieved. Were you suggesting that the data stolen from the State of Alabama and crashing the CIA website (and associated sites) wasn't the work of Anonymous but rather of The USA or Israel?

If your thought is that this is some made up threat, then perhaps the claim that there was no Luftwaffe, only a poorly spun Lufthansa might resonate.... and the Estado Novo never really existed at all.

Crono908 - You should avail yourself of the facts of history rather than the superficialities in your reply #15. In fact, Jews have lived in the current borders of Israel since before the First Diaspora uninterrupted until the present. The claim to Jerusalem and Israel was never surrendered. Quite the opposite.

Perhaps the most galling to the "Amalekites" (literal and figurative) throughout history is the Jews rather unsettling ability to survive, prosper and enrich the world. You might read Abba Eban's works regarding the history of the Jewish people and Israel (starting in roughly 3100 B.C.E.).

No, I'm just saying that you shouldn't believe everything you read without checking the facts from several *independent* sources yourself. The US invading a sovereign nation like Iraq because of Bush and imaginary Weapons of Mass Destruction comes to mind, for instance. Something eery similar seems to be happening with Iran now.

I, for one, am sick and tired of being mislead like a little brainless lamb. That's why sites like Wikileaks are so important, they unmask the absolute hypocrisy that's behind the actions of many nations.

This said, I'm also of the opinion that you can't trust an unregulated rogue group like Anonymous. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Anonymous are not immune to this. Nor is Wikileaks, unfortunately.

I couldn't agree more, Jorge. Trying to find those dependable sources is a central trust issue. At the end of the day, neither you nor I have the tools to uncover it by ourselves from a primary source.

The interconnectivity makes 'independent' sources even more difficult to find. Ideally, one would like to find 2 or 3 sources getting their info from trustworthy sources. However, truly there is no real 'pure' reporting... every eye and ear has a bias.

eerily similar [one word at a time... it requires an adverb. No biggy. I'll fix it before that... Jafo... gets it]. Actually, Saddam said very little to provoke the Iraq 'thing'. Ahmadinajad and the Ayatollas (a new singing group) are doing quite the opposite. They are deliberately stating they intend to destroy Israel... and strike Europe and the West, to many reporters and at every opportunity. I cannot believe that to be a lie.

Anonymous is a different p.i.t.a. Hard to know, I agree. Still, I won't cry at their disappearance.

Except WinStep. And my love of it, which is pure and unbiased. You gonna argue with that? Huh? 

BOTH are blights on humanity.

Yeah, and that is the big problem. But the thing is, we shouldn't have to - instead, our sources *should* be reliable and independent. But they are not.

I realize I'm going all over the place with this, but this reminds me of what is happening now with Greece and the economic crisis. The Greeks are being labeled as 'lazy' and 'spoiled' when, in reality, the Greek people are no different from you and I, and are suffering tremendously with all these austerity measures.

It's the corruption in their government that created this situation, but some still blame the Greeks in general because they're the ones who voted for those in power. However, this argument fails to take into account that we do not live in a true Democracy: we can only vote for those the political parties put before us, but, by the time those 'leaders' get into a position where they can be elected, they're already owing favors left and right. The system is corrupt from the root, and our democracy system is generally no different than a dance of the chairs.

Tommy Douglas best describes this in his famous 'The story of Mouseland' speech, a speech everybody should listen to at least once. You can find a Youtube video of this speech HERE.

Tommy Douglas was elected into office, founded the Canadian national health care system, and became known as the greatest Canadian of all time.

So, we *should* be able to trust our governments to do the best for the people who elected them into power, as neither you nor I have the tools to audit what they are doing by ourselves. It's their job, it's what we are paying them for. But alas, once corruption is endemic, they can't be trusted and our choices are not real choices, just more of the same.

It's like our current Portuguese prime-minister, he brought the previous government down and was elected on the premise that the Portuguese people had no need for more austerity measures. And what is the first thing he does once he is in power? Yep, that's right, more austerity measures, more cruel than anything his predecessor came up with. These annihilate the middle class and destroy an economy based mostly on small and medium companies, putting even more people in the unemployment queues and pushing many others into real poverty, a vicious cycle that will be very hard to break away from. As for the 'established powers' (the other cats, in Tommy Douglas speech) - the true culprits of this situation - well, they are still there and thriving.

Because our system makes sure an elected government stays there for at least 4 years, we can no longer undo what we did even though this guy got elected based on a blatant lie. Even if we could, chances are the replacement government would do exactly the same thing. They're all cats, after all, so they all cover each others backs.

Going back to news sources, I don't buy a newspaper because I want to be lied to. I expect journalists to tell me the truth based on facts, or, at the very least, unbiased opinions. Again, this is not what happens, we get a mix of truths, half-truths, and downright lies, and, because of our inability to uncover the truth by ourselves, as you said, we will believe most of it - or none of it.

In the end, the only way out of this situation seems to be having some kind of independent 'bodies' to police both press and governments. And we get right back to the beginning, because who will then police the police?

Nope, but only because you are a *primary* source.

I'm saying it smells. Now we have this... faction... that by its very definition anyone can belong to who so chooses. There are no leaders, and no unifying goals (except, perhaps, against corporate fascism). It is a too vapid argument for me to go to the voting booth for more radical measures against the freedoms we take for granted while visiting the internet.

Anonymous is today a tool that cannot be controlled, and thus can be blamed for anything. With no leadership and no dogma, there is nothing stopping anyone else from connecting what we consider "evil" traits to their... "organization". In other words, I am deeply suspicious of many of the activities that are undertaken in the name of Anonymous. They may well be paid for by those supposedly attacked.

Well said.

A what if ......

      What if Anonymous is really a collection of hand-picked personages given the job of planting misinformation on the web to distract the ordinary person from realizing their true nature. what if Anonymous is a clandestine 'agency' whose sole purpose is to lead the common folk away from the harsh reality of political machinations by staging these attacks, with the sanction of certain PTB's, gathering info planted by these certain PTB's to mislead the public and keep them ignorant of their true nature. This so-called true nature being one of supplying foreign powers with things they want to hear but not realizing that behind their back this 'agency' is really collecting the 'skeletons in the closet' for future reference or future leverage. I know its a stretch but the US isn't beneath such things.

Certainly it's possible.

We will never know the truth. I think the Anonymous movement started as genuine movement, but it was more a part of popular culture than motivated by a political leaning. On paper it looked great because it would visualize movements under a common banner by basically having a completely "open" door-policy. And then that turned into a huge weakness, because as the movement grew, it attracted enemies or just people who saw an opportunity in operating from underneath their banner. Inherent in their design is a lack of ability to deal with such intruders.

More than ever, with an organization that lacks leadership, and lacks a specific political agenda (again, with the possible exception of anti-corporate-fascism) we need to be asking ourselves - where are these threats and actions REALLY coming from?

It may be ironic, but anonymous as a movement will probably end up depending on government law enforcement to root out the bad apples from their baskets. They have so far shown themselves utterly incapable of doing it themselves.

tl:dr; I think Anonymous may have been a benign movement from the start, but has today pretty much been hijacked by extremes due to its flawed design.

Couldn't agree more. Their lack of internal cohesion makes them prone to just about anyone wanting to jump on the bandwagon.

Correct. We must remove money and improper influence from the system. We must also have accessible means to correct their actions: Not once every 2 or 4 years, either. Means not restricted by access only to other politicians: Legal, non-violent means.

Heavenfall, thanks for the explanation.

That I can agree in part with, but the 'paid for by those supposedly attacked' also while possible, less likely. Maybe I'm just not as suspicious as I should perphaps be.

And for Mr. Jorge... I proudly admit to being a primary source on WinStep and Stardock customizing software. I also admit to being totally, publicly, irrevocably (and shamelessly) addicted to both.