'Anonymous' hackers target US security think tank

That company should be sued for not encrypting the user's credit card data. But also, shame on Anonymous for stealing regular people's money like that.

Awww, you are so noble standing up to the man aren't you princess?

And those who support such activity are criminals as well.

The email, signed by Stratfor Chief Executive George Friedman, said the company is "working closely with law enforcement to identify who is behind the breach."

And those who support such activity are criminals as well.

Like the Red Cross, CARE and Save the Children? I guess not being robber-barron sociopaths puts them on your ****list.

And those who support such activity are criminals as well.

Like the Red Cross, CARE and Save the Children? I guess not being robber-barron sociopaths puts them on your ****list.

Please publish your personal data so others can 'donate' to their favorite charity you your behalf.

Anonymous have officially denied having anything to do with this. I find it strange that even in 2011 so few question the investigative methods (or rather the complete absence of them) of online media. It's rather embarrassing really.

And those who support such activity are criminals as well.

Like the Red Cross, CARE and Save the Children? I guess not being robber-barron sociopaths puts them on your ****list.

Please publish your personal data so others can 'donate' to their favorite charity you your behalf.

What makes you think this person doesn't already donate to charity, or contribute to society in some way greater than whining on a website?

--- This is totally irrelevant. You may donate all you like of YOUR OWN money. "Donating" someone else's is called something else.

To anyone above the poverty line, $700 should be relatively insignificant.

--- Who told you so? They? Or did you decide for yourself how much they can spare on your favorite project?

I think the point of this action

What did you expect? All such groups start under what they think are noble slogans but very, very quickly decay into the common criminals. Once you start on the path of breaking the law, it's next to impossible to stop.

Yep, common criminals give all their ill gotten gains away to charities like "Save the Children".

Yep, common criminals give all their ill gotten gains away to charities like "Save the Children".

It doesn't matter the motive for theft. It is still a crime that all who use credit cards WILL pay for.

Yep, common criminals give all their ill gotten gains away to charities like "Save the Children".

It doesn't matter the motive for theft. It is still a crime that all who use credit cards WILL pay for.

I think the point of this action, regardless of by whom it was taken, was to show people how little they are willing to give or spare even to a cause that they feel is noble or just. Who knows though, could just be angry people with talent.

I think the point of this action, regardless of by whom it was taken, was to show people how little they are willing to give or spare even to a cause that they feel is noble or just. Who knows though, could just be angry people with talent.

No, they are criminals.
If they really wanted to 'donate', why spend all that time and effort to steal from others to 'donate' other people's money?
They deserved zero support and anyone who supports their tactics should be arrested for aiding and abetting.

defending peaceful protestors

I think the point of this action, regardless of by whom it was taken, was to show people how little they are willing to give or spare even to a cause that they feel is noble or just. Who knows though, could just be angry people with talent.

No, they are criminals.
If they really wanted to 'donate', why spend all that time and effort to steal from others to 'donate' other people's money?
They deserved zero support and anyone who supports their tactics should be arrested for aiding and abetting.

They exposed the incompetency and criminal negligence of a global security firm. Do you recognize the value in that?

That could have been done without stealing from others. No, they are criminals.

Why do you feel like you need to keep reiterating that when it is not a point of contention?

Does that sound like a "common criminal" to you?

Does that sound like a "common criminal" to you?

Yes it does. I thought I've made it abundantly clear by now.

And if you want to ask "any prisecutir" - the motive may help to qualify the crime. But it's still a crime.

And when you say they are so noble and unselfish and so are justified in commiting their crimes

Why do you feel like you need to keep reiterating that when it is not a point of contention?

Because you appear to be supporting their actions.

Those that stole airplanes flying them into buildings murdering people were not 'common' criminals in Holly's view. They were not doing so for 'personal gain'.

Those that stole airplanes flying them into buildings murdering people were not 'common' criminals in Holly's view. They were not doing so for 'personal gain'.

Holly, you assert an act of theft can't be considered a crime if not performed for personal gain.

Holly, you assert an act of theft can't be considered a crime if not performed for personal gain.

Nope, I've already admitted that they are criminals for this, hence I agree that what they did should be considered a crime.

You might want to try listening once in a while.

What personal gain do terrorists receive for murdering people?

Care to elucidate what do you think the distinction is?

but by the betterment of society.

but by the betterment of society.

That's what the Islamic terrorists say, too.

Then you're an idiot, what do you want me to tell you?

but by the betterment of society.

@ryggesogn2 That's what the Islamic terrorists say, too.

but by the betterment of society.

That's what the Islamic terrorists say, too.

Funny, that's what 'conservative' right wing terrorists say, too. See Anders Breivik: http://en.wikiped..._Breivik - FrankHubris

No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing.

@Noumenon -Anders Breivik was found to be a paranoid schizophrenia by court-appointed psychiatrists....- Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, are not insane, nor are they rare, nor do they act alone. Their actions are a direct symptom of their idealology.

@Noumenon Again, Frank, there is nothing in the ideology of western conservatism that condones violence of any sort.

Again, Frank, there is nothing in the ideology of western conservatism that condones violence of any sort.

Dear Dingus,

I'm not the sole owner of the username "Noumenon",.. in fact many times I must add characters at the end because "Noumenon" is already taken on many boards. I googled the above phrase. I have never posted at newrepublic.com, nor have I ever threatened anyone on any board. I do not hold such vitriolic hatred toward lefties.

You can't debate on principals so you attempt to demonize me. Unfortunately for you the Internet has well over one billion users and "Noumenon" is known to anyone who has seriously studied philosophy.

Find something else to do Frank. 8/8/2011

But the real question is, how many of these same people celebrated the writing of Mr. Von Brunn earlier?

BTW, Breivik may be crazy as a loon, but hes absolutely right about Islam. There, I said it. Deal with it.

"Paranoid ideology"?! I don't think so. Concerned or anxious? Especially since 9/11, Bali bombings, 7/7 in London, Madrid bombings? And a string of other related, ongoing events? Most definitely, Yes.

Core messages of Breivik's writings, presented by our own "illustrious" mainstream media starting on July 22, 2011, say he is anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism, anti-Marxist & anti-Islam (for reasons he gave). -- Those ideas/beliefs have been shared by very many ordinary people too, I'd say, for over 15.

He could have proved his fanaticalism by executing Muslim children instead, but that would not have convinced Jihadis that he wasn't an agent of what they still see as the "anti-Muslim" EU/US.

I couldn't care less whats at that site.

Did those "tens of thousands of freepers" commit any acts of terrorism? Did not fail to understand my previous post?

Is there a concerted terrorist effort on the part of a large group of people, that are motivated by a legitimate interpretation of conservatism,... that is to say, a main stream interpretation?

What "sick ideology" are you talking about? How is American conservatism a sick ideology? Your association of islamic terrorism to western conservatism is what is sick and patently absurd.

I couldn't care less whats at that site. Meaningless

Koch, Fascists are socialists.

I am entirely non-religious, therefore, it is a false premise that conservatism equates to religious.

Fascist? Again you're way over the top with your self imposed "radicalism" or self imposed misapprehension of conservatism.

All conservationism originated from the triad authority of the church, monarch and army to entrench feudalism. The founding fathers of America were liberal democrats and deists. You don't really know what you are, apparently. That's good enough for the Tea Party, though.

But what you fail to realize is conservative Islamists, particularly the ones that resort to terrorism, are in fact conservatives. They are "trying to preserve their way of life," just like American 'conservatives' are.

Poll tests are racist. You support poll tests.

@ryggesogn2 Koch, Fascists are socialists. And I agree, socialists are nutcases.

@FrankHerbert But what you fail to realize is conservative Islamists, particularly the ones that resort to terrorism, are in fact conservatives. They are "trying to preserve their way of life," just like American 'conservatives' are.

@Noumenon Well gee, eveyone is trying to preserve their way of life, doh. That's not a "conservative thing".

@Noumenon It should be obvious to even you that some islamic interpretations and the societies that result are entirely incompatible with western societies.

socialism is concerned with equatable DISTRIBUTION.

All ideologies are wrong.

None of these systems care a whit about protecting individual property rights.

None of these systems care a whit about protecting individual property rights.

How would you know? I doubt you've ever had a passport.

None of these systems care a whit about protecting individual property rights.

How would you know? I doubt you've ever had a passport.

Why does that matter?

. No, that doesn't mean I'm a socialist, or a communist etc. etc. it simply means the imbalance of wealth is becoming a problem.