'Anonymous' hackers target US security think tank

Dec 25, 2011 By CASSANDRA VINOGRAD , Associated Press
Online "hacktivist" group Anonymous claimed Sunday it had stolen a trove of emails and credit card information from US-based security firm Stratfor's clients, and vowed additional attacks.

Hackers with the loose-knit movement "Anonymous" claimed on Sunday to have stolen a raft of emails and credit card data from U.S.-based security think tank Stratfor, promising it was just the start of a weeklong, Christmas-inspired assault on a long list of targets.

One alleged hacker said the goal was to use the credit data to steal a million dollars - including, apparently, from individuals' accounts - and give the money away as Christmas donations. Images posted online claimed to show the receipts.

A account tied to Anonymous posted a link to what they said was Stratfor's tightly-guarded, confidential client list. Among those on the list: The U.S. Army, the U.S. and the Miami Police Department.

The rest of the list, which the hacking movement said was a small slice of its 200 gigabytes worth of plunder, included banks, , defense contractors and such as Apple and Microsoft.

"Not so private and secret anymore?" the group taunted in a message on the microblogging site.

Austin, Texas-based Stratfor provides political, economic and military analysis to help clients reduce risk, according to a description on its YouTube page. It charges subscribers for its reports and analysis, delivered through the web, emails and videos.

Lt. Col. John Dorrian, public affairs officer for the Air Force, said that "for obvious reasons" the Air Force doesn't discuss specific vulnerabilities, threats or responses to them.

"The Air Force will continue to monitor the situation and, as always, take apporpriate action as necessary to protect Air Force networks and information," he said in an email.

Miami Police Department spokesman Sgt. Freddie Cruz Jr. said that he could not confirm that the agency was a client of Stratfor, and he said he had not received any information about any involving the police department.

Anonymous said it was able to get the credit details in part because Stratfor didn't bother encrypting them - an easy-to-avoid blunder which, if true, would be a major embarrassment for any security-related company.

Hours after publishing what it claimed was Stratfor's client list, Anonymous tweeted a link to encrypted files online. It said the files contained 4,000 credit cards, passwords and home addresses belonging to individuals on the think tank's private client list.

It also linked to images online that it suggested were receipts for charitable donations made by the group manipulating the credit card data it stole.

"Thank you! Defense Intelligence Agency," read the text above one image that appeared to show a transaction summary indicating that an agency employee's information was used to donate $250 to a non-profit.

One receipt - to the American Red Cross - had Allen Barr's name on it.

Barr, of Austin, Texas, recently retired from the Texas Department of Banking and said he discovered last Friday that a total of $700 had been spent from his account. Barr, who has spent more than a decade dealing with cybercrime at banks, said five transactions were made in total.

"It was all charities, the Red Cross, CARE, Save the Children. So when the credit card company called my wife she wasn't sure whether I was just donating," said Barr, who wasn't aware until a reporter with the AP called that his information had been compromised when Stratfor's computers were hacked.

"It made me feel terrible. It made my wife feel terrible. We had to close the account."

Stratfor said in an email to members that it had suspended its servers and email after learning that its website had been hacked.

"We have reason to believe that the names of our corporate subscribers have been posted on other web sites," said the email, passed on to The Associated Press by subscribers. "We are diligently investigating the extent to which subscriber information may have been obtained."

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."

"Stratfor's relationship with its members and, in particular, the confidentiality of their subscriber information, are very important to Stratfor and me," Friedman wrote.

Repeated calls to Stratfor went unanswered Sunday and an answering machine thanked callers for contacting the "No. 1 source for global intelligence." Stratfor's website was down, with a banner saying "site is currently undergoing maintenance."

Wishing everyone a "Merry LulzXMas" - a nod to its spinoff hacking group Lulz Security - Anonymous also posted a link on Twitter to a site containing the email, phone number and credit number of a U.S. Homeland Security employee.

The employee, Cody Sultenfuss, said he had no warning before his details were posted.

"They took money I did not have," he told The Associated Press in a series of emails, which did not specify the amount taken. "I think why me? I am not rich."

One member of the hacking group, who uses the handle AnonymousAbu on Twitter, claimed that more than 90,000 credit cards from law enforcement, the intelligence community and journalists - "corporate/exec accounts of people like Fox" news - had been hacked and used to "steal a million dollars" and make donations.

It was impossible to verify where details were used. Fox News was not on the excerpted list of Stratfor members posted online, but other media organizations including MSNBC and Al Jazeera English appeared in the file.

Anonymous warned it has "enough targets lined up to extend the fun fun fun of LulzXmas through the entire next week."

The group has previously claimed responsibility for attacks on companies such as Visa, MasterCard and PayPal, as well as others in the music industry and the Church of Scientology.

Explore further: Study: Social media users shy away from opinions

5 /5 (11 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Hacker group declares cyber war on US police

Aug 07, 2011

A hacker group on Saturday claimed it has "defaced and destroyed" websites at scores of US police agencies in retaliation for the arrest of suspected peers accused of hacking into the CIA, British crime agency SOCA, and ...

Expert: Rural US websites easy target for hackers

Aug 08, 2011

(AP) -- The digital trove of credit card numbers and emails stolen by the group known as Anonymous came from towns across rural America - places like Gassville, Ark. and Tishomingo County, Miss., where officers don't usually ...

73,000 Finnish web users' details hacked: police

Nov 28, 2011

The login details of 73,000 users of a popular Finnish family-oriented discussion forum were stolen and posted online in the latest in a series of widespread hacking attacks, police said Monday.

Hackers claim another Sony attack

Jun 07, 2011

Hackers claimed to have staged another attack on Japanese electronics giant Sony, publishing online a file containing source code for the Sony Computer Entertainment Developer Network.

Recommended for you

Study: Social media users shy away from opinions

Aug 26, 2014

People on Facebook and Twitter say they are less likely to share their opinions on hot-button issues, even when they are offline, according to a surprising new survey by the Pew Research Center.

US warns shops to watch for customer data hacking

Aug 23, 2014

The US Department of Homeland Security on Friday warned businesses to watch for hackers targeting customer data with malicious computer code like that used against retail giant Target.

Fitbit to Schumer: We don't sell personal data

Aug 22, 2014

The maker of a popular line of wearable fitness-tracking devices says it has never sold personal data to advertisers, contrary to concerns raised by U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer.

Should you be worried about paid editors on Wikipedia?

Aug 22, 2014

Whether you trust it or ignore it, Wikipedia is one of the most popular websites in the world and accessed by millions of people every day. So would you trust it any more (or even less) if you knew people ...

Philippines makes arrests in online extortion ring

Aug 22, 2014

Philippine police have arrested eight suspected members of an online syndicate accused of blackmailing more than 1,000 Hong Kong and Singapore residents after luring them into exposing themselves in front of webcam, an official ...

User comments : 96

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

plasticpower
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2011
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.
Larz_Larzen
3.1 / 5 (17) Dec 25, 2011
"Anonymous" should be unmasked and given a one-way ticket to the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth.
Grizzled
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 25, 2011
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.
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (29) Dec 25, 2011
Another bullshit fearmongering globalist US tyrannical security-state thinktank gutted. Anyone up for a requiem?
With citizens forced to bend over and be raped by Homo Security, why shouldn't the sponsors of tyranny make a $250 contribution to the Red Cross? Oh my, that's terrorism!
kochevnik
1 / 5 (19) Dec 25, 2011
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.
Spooks aren't "regular peoples."
Dance
3.4 / 5 (13) Dec 25, 2011
"Another bullshit fearmongering globalist US tyrannical security-state thinktank gutted. Anyone up for a requiem?"

Awww, you are so noble standing up to the man aren't you princess?
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (30) Dec 25, 2011
Robin Hood took back tax revenue confiscated by the govt.
Anonymous is stealing from every consumer. Credit card customers and consumers pay in higher fees and interest rates and higher prices for all customers.
Anonymous is just another criminal that raises the cost of all products for everyone.
And those who support such activity are criminals as well.
expert
3.3 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2011
In Russia we call Stratfor as "Shadow CIA".
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (25) Dec 25, 2011
Awww, you are so noble standing up to the man aren't you princess?
Acknowledging the facts isn't "standing up to the man." It's the minimum requirement for a healthy mind, you tyrannical coward.

Bunch of spook-lovers voted down my last post. Probably the same Nazi-sympathizers who voted down my anti-torture post. Shows what kind of world we really live in.
hcl
3.5 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2011
The entire story does not smell right. The whole hacker community is infiltrated by the Feds, and Stratfor is semi-public. While its officials may have intelligence connections, I question the seriousness of a firm that offers the general public paid subscription to its news and intelligence reports.
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (25) Dec 25, 2011
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.
Tangent2
3 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2011
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."


Good luck with that. I doubt they will be able to find the people involved that have demonstrated this level of skill.
_nigmatic10
not rated yet Dec 26, 2011
Guess there will be a think tank assigned to think of ways to protect their thinking. *nods*

Disclaimer: To avoid the useless overmoderation siting some lame excuse like "useless verbiage" the above statement outlines a possible course of action for the subjects involved in the above incident which will likely result in expanded powers and policy changes suggested for various criminal enforcement agencies as well as an increase in funding to put an end to the extensive amount of hacking seen in recent years.

Yeah. that about sums it up.
Objectivist
2.6 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2011
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.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Dec 26, 2011
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.
h20dr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2011
"No. 1 source for global intelligence"
But "working closely with law enforcement" to identify the culprits.
How ironic is THAT?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (18) Dec 26, 2011
"Credit card customers and consumers pay in higher fees and interest rates and higher prices for all customers." - RyggTard

Credit card customers pay high fees because they are morons who don't know how to manage money, and don't care about the lack of security by credit card companies that causes them to lose tens of billions of dollars annually due to credit card fraud due to that lack of security.

Credit card companies are proof that with just one layer of obscurity, massive fraud pays massively.

Libertarian/Randite fools like RyggTard hold that such fraud is impossible in a free market system.

By the way RyggTard. You still haven't explained to us why your hero - Ayn Rand was on welfare.

MediocreSmoke
3.2 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2011
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? To anyone above the poverty line, $700 should be relatively insignificant assuming you don't live beyond your means. 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.
Hari_Seldon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2011
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.


I think the problem is people are very critical of online sources, just not the ones that play into their biases. However, this could really be said of any medium and probably isn't unique to our time.
Oysteroid
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2011
T
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


--- The point of this action was vanton destruction out of spite. Because we can!
tysoncable
3 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2011
so when i read the article literally, i read:

an international security organisation got severely showed up by some militant hackers. that its credibility got severely undermined and that the hackers themselves stole small increments of money to make large, aggregated donations.

great to see we still have the age old battle of establishment and antidisestablishmentarianism evolving our collective psyche.
CHollman82
1.4 / 5 (16) Dec 28, 2011
"It was all charities, the Red Cross, CARE, Save the Children."

"It made me feel terrible. It made my wife feel terrible. We had to close the account."

There you have it folks, Allen Barr hates giving money to charities, it makes him feel terrible.
CHollman82
1.7 / 5 (17) Dec 28, 2011
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".

Give me a break.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (18) Dec 28, 2011
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.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (18) Dec 28, 2011
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.

And this includes those sell products and accept credit card payments. Bottom line this crime so many here support will be paid for by everyone. Including you.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (16) Dec 28, 2011
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 didn't say it wasn't a crime, did I? I was responding to the clown who was arguing that they were "common criminals"
Grizzled
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 28, 2011
They are. Like it or not - that's exactly what they are. The motive or ***alleged*** motive doesn't matter a single bit. You clown.
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 28, 2011
They are nothing at all like common criminals for the very simple fact that common criminals do what they do for personal gain and the group Anonymous has never done anything for personal gain.

Motive matters, ask any prosecutor.
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 28, 2011
The group "Anonymous" exposes fraud and incompetence. They are doing a public service at an insignificant expense and at their own risk with no possibility for reward. Does that sound like a "common criminal" to you?

You should look into the other actions of this group, such as defending peaceful protestors who were attacked by police and going after known animal abusers...
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (21) Dec 28, 2011
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.
CHollman82
2.2 / 5 (17) Dec 28, 2011
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?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Dec 28, 2011
defending peaceful protestors

Who were violating the property rights of others.
'Noble' motives don't justify criminal acts. BTW, they ARE committing their crimes for their gain.
OCW decry 'greedy' Wall Street while DEMANDING the taxpayers fund their education and pay them for not working. Who is greedy here?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (19) Dec 28, 2011
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.
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2011
That could have been done without stealing from others. No, they are criminals.


I agree they could have, and I agree they are criminals by the definition of the word. Why do you feel like you need to keep reiterating that when it is not a point of contention?

They are not "common criminals", as was previously stated, which is what I am arguing about.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (19) Dec 28, 2011
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.
Grizzled
3.9 / 5 (14) Dec 28, 2011
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 - do you subscribe to the idea that ends justify the means? If so, will a disgusted citizen be justified in taking the gun and shootong them all dead? You see, that citizen truly believed they are evil and was motivated by the noble desire to protect the society... How about that?
CHollman82
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 28, 2011
Does that sound like a "common criminal" to you?

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


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

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


I never said it wasn't a crime, in fact I agreed that it was. Also, I spelled prosecutor correctly so I'm not sure what that was all about...

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


I never said this either, are you illiterate or is English a second language?
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 28, 2011
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.


I recognize the value of their actions, and I recognize that they are putting themselves at risk without possibility for reward to accomplish something that they believe in and think is right, there is honor in that whether or not you agree with their methods.
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 28, 2011
...but hey, in a room full of idiots only a genius is a fool. Ad Populum fallacy dominates the discussions on this website, followed closely by bandwagoning and holding grudges in perpetuity.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 28, 2011
This Grizzled clown thinks that "common criminals" don't care about personal gain when they put themselves at great risk of incarceration. According to him it is "common" for a criminal to give away everything they ever steal to charitable organizations such that they do not benefit in any way from their crimes.

What an idiot.
Grizzled
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2011
Thank you CHollman. By throwing around abuse like that you have shown conclusively just WHAT you are. One of those crimininals, right? Or maybe a closet-type supporter. But either way, you are clearly incapable of conductiong a civilised discussion... Exactly like those clowns.

P.S. If I could be excused for a second for stooping down to that low level of intellect you can understand - Sir, you ARE an idiot.
CHollman82
1.7 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2011
You didn't say anything.

Do you still think that "common criminals" risk their freedom without the possibility of gaining anything for taking that risk?

Was that your way of weaseling out of the discussion after realizing that you are wrong?
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2011
According to you I'm an idiot because I don't think common criminals would take the risks that they take if they didn't intend on reaping a reward for it.

Which statement would an idiot make:

1 - Common criminals don't care about personal gain and will often donate all of their stolen goods to charity.

2 - Common criminals are motivated by personal gain and will rarely if ever donate their stolen goods to charity.

You be the judge.
CHollman82
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 28, 2011
Just admit you were wrong in calling them "common criminals", you and everyone else knows it and it's pathetic.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Dec 28, 2011
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'.
That was the approach the Clinton administration took when investigating the 'crimes' of the African Embassy bombings and other 'criminal' acts against US citizens.
So Holly, then you support treating these hackers as enemies of the state, enemy combatants? That would be a more liberating approach as the investigators wouldn't be hamstrung by the 'common' rules of evidence.
CHollman82
1.9 / 5 (16) Dec 28, 2011
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'.


We are talking about theft... Anonymous made charges on other people's credit cards, I don't know what you think this has to do with kamikaze suicide terrorism...

The funny thing is you think you're making a point, when really you've just gone full retard in making ridiculous comparisons that have nothing at all to do with each other.
kochevnik
3.1 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2011
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'.
You make a compelling point ryggesogn2, except that all of the "hijackers" had alibis to prove they WERE NOT on the planes in question, except for one who was a Pakistani ISS agent. Many are still working jobs. Mythology does not make a good example. Or are you saying they all had parachutes?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Dec 28, 2011
Holly, you assert an act of theft can't be considered a crime if not performed for personal gain.
What personal gain do terrorists receive for murdering people?
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (14) Dec 28, 2011
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.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (18) Dec 28, 2011
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.

But you don't think they are 'common' criminals?
Why do you care to differentiate?
Grizzled
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2011
So, if I undetstand the argument right, it hinges on the disinction between the common and uncommon criminals, right? (Since you have admitted several times already that they ARE criminals).t

Care to elucidate what do you think the distinction is?

Just the issue of personal gain? That won't work - personal gain can take many forms - fame, notoriety, just the deluded self-esteem (like you obviously share with them). It doesn't have to be monetary - but it's still a gain.
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (14) Dec 28, 2011
What personal gain do terrorists receive for murdering people?
Things like immunity from prosecution by the FBI?
CHollman82
1.7 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2011
Care to elucidate what do you think the distinction is?


I've already said as much:

"I recognize the value of their actions, and I recognize that they are putting themselves at risk without possibility for reward to accomplish something that they believe in and think is right, there is honor in that whether or not you agree with their methods."

To group them with "common criminals" is to ignore the honorable aspect of what they are doing. They are putting themselves in danger only to do what they feel is right and just. Whether or not you agree with them or their methods has no bearing on the fact that they are not motivated by personal gain but by the betterment of society. Exposing security companies that can't even adequately secure their own information is a public service. Defending the individual against the state is an admirable goal. Promoting transparency in governance by exposing corruption is downright heroic.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Dec 28, 2011
but by the betterment of society.

That's what the Islamic terrorists say, too.
FrankHerbert
4.5 / 5 (32) Dec 29, 2011
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
bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (18) Dec 29, 2011
Then you're an idiot, what do you want me to tell you?
- CHollman

At that juncture is was not worth pursuing given that Grizzled et al have decided they are correct even in the face of logic and reason. Damn it CHollman, you continue to be more objective and interesting. Say something dumb or just be plain contradictory again so I can go back to dis-liking you!

@Grizzled - do try to to engage your brain before mangling what others say to serve your own purpose. Hmmm motives ..

Grizzled
2 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2011
@bluehigh: Too bad baby - you obviously don't even have a brain to engage.

Otherwise, you would have known that personal insults never work in a polemic.

Back to your playpen now until you learn the rules of civilised discussion.
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (17) Dec 29, 2011
but by the betterment of society.
@ryggesogn2 That's what the Islamic terrorists say, too.
Yes because they are conservatives.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (77) Dec 29, 2011
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


Some basic logic for you, free of charge;

-Anders Breivik was found to be a paranoid schizophrenia by court-appointed psychiatrists. People like Anders Breivik are extremely rare and generally act alone. Their actions are a symptom of their affliction, not any particular attribute they may have, like a political ideology.

- 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.

Idiot political hacks love the idea of a Anders Breivik.
FrankHerbert
4.4 / 5 (32) Dec 29, 2011
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.

Also you really think no Islamic conservative terrorists have mental disorders, but all Western 'conservative' terrorists *MUST* have a mental disorder and therefore are not included as part of YOUR group, right?

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.

http://rationalwi...Scotsman

What good is philosophy if you can't recognize this? If anyone should have gotten that it should have been you, Noumenon, enlightened philosopher king. lol.

Maybe the problem isn't philosophy. Maybe it's just you, Dunning, and Kruger to blame ;-)
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Dec 29, 2011
Conservatives in the US do not want to preserve the current socialist way of life in the USA.
TrinityComplex
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2011
A big part of this thread has been symantics, so let's clarify:
Common: adj., noun, widespread; general; ordinary.

The 'common' person, let alone the common criminal, doesn't know how to program their own router. So the ability to intercepting highly sensitive data takes them our of the 'common' category, but maybe instead you're arguing about motive. Compromise; just drop the word 'common' and everyone should be happy.

Griz, I notice you have a special talent for insulting people until either you perceive that they have made blatant insults, or they really have. It seems to be a goal you reach for to try and invalidate what people say. It's rather transparent, and whether you make good points or not this practice does not make people especially keen to listen to you.

That being said, others should cool it too. Don't take the bait, and keep your arguments rational. Try not to make assummptions based on what you perceive unless you plan on asking for clarification.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (78) Dec 29, 2011
Again, Frank, there is nothing in the ideology of western conservatism that condones violence of any sort.

While on the other hand, there is a implicit justification for violence in an interpretation of the Qur'an, in the form of Islamic jihad,... that is not a mere an aberration of Islam, but is a concerted movement unto itself by a relative large group of Islamist,. therefore the motive interpretation of the Qur'an is a legitimate one.

Anders Breivik's actions represented again an affliction, an illness, who motivations were an aberration of conservatism. It's not me saying he was insane, it was qualified group of psychiatrists. Are you saying those psychiatrists are all conservative?

Your idiotic association of western conservatives to islamic terrorists, because both groups are "conservative" in the common use of that term, is utter non-sense, and pointless.
kochevnik
3.9 / 5 (14) Dec 29, 2011
@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.
So basic logic implies that some conservatives are paranoid schizophrenics, and other are just religious nutcases. The religious conservative nutcases act in a group under shared mass delusion. Makes sense.

@Noumenon Again, Frank, there is nothing in the ideology of western conservatism that condones violence of any sort.
Yes violence takes a back seat to destroying the middle class and stealing more oil.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (78) Dec 29, 2011
You're way over the top kochevnik , so there is no way for me to take you seriously.

If you meant it as a sarcastic joke, then it was mildly funny,.. but with you, I can't be sure.
FrankHerbert
4.4 / 5 (32) Dec 29, 2011
Again, Frank, there is nothing in the ideology of western conservatism that condones violence of any sort.

Are you going to claim the tens of thousands of freepers are mentally disturbed?

http://www.freerepublic.com

"Lock and load"

"Keeping my power dry"

"Watering the tree of liberty"

"The only 'NO' a liberal understands is the one that arrives at muzzle velocity." <- That little gem was from a member named "Noumenon". Coincidence?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2814220/posts
You can see it in the 5th post. He has since changed his signature.

You're just cowards not willing to say what you believe out in the open. Pathetic.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (79) Dec 29, 2011
As I told you back in August when you made that same idiotic charge,..

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


Did those "tens of thousands of freepers" commit any acts of terrorism? Did not fail to understand my previous post?
FrankHerbert
4.4 / 5 (32) Dec 29, 2011
Oh, I forgot to mention the Holocaust Museum shooter's manifesto was posted on free republic.
http://www.freere...55/posts

Do you see the glowing praise it gets? That was before the shooting.

Now look at them try to "no true scotsman" the man out of existence. I'll just post the headlines. You can search for them if you wish to view their garbage.
______
Inconvenient truths: Holocaust Museum shooter (a LIBERAL)hated Fox News, Murdoch

MSNBC Notes: Holocaust Museum Shooter Popular On Free Republic (Libs Lie Again About FR)

Holocaust Museum shooter von Brunn a 9/11 'truther' who hated 'neo-cons', Bush, McCain

Holocaust Museum Shooter: Christian hating Socialist

_____
The dailykos gets to the real issue.
http://www.dailyk...December
But the real question is, how many of these same people celebrated the writing of Mr. Von Brunn earlier?
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (79) Dec 29, 2011
I couldn't care less whats at that site. Meaningless. You apparently have failed to comprehend my post above.

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? No. Islamic Jihad IS a mainstream interpretation of the Qur'an. I'm not seeing any Anti-Bill-Ayers' type terrorist actions reported? Name some.

Stop spamming the site with irrelevant non-sense.
FrankHerbert
4.3 / 5 (32) Dec 29, 2011
http://www.freere...97/posts
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.
FrankHerbert
4.5 / 5 (31) Dec 29, 2011
I couldn't care less whats at that site.

You cared when you thought it bolstered your point.

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

Yes actually. At least one did and many on the site supported the actions of Breivik. But you don't want to defend that, now do you? Now you say you don't care.

You're a hypocrite, and a coward.

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?


For one, jihad means "struggle". That's it, but if you want to claim that jihad-as-holy-war is "mainstream" you must recognize the "nuke Mecca and Medina, glass parking lot, HOORAH!" "mainstream" view in the US.

But you won't. You will keep chugging along with your sick ideology and blame its negative aspects on other, better people.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (80) Dec 29, 2011
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.
kochevnik
3.9 / 5 (15) Dec 29, 2011
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.
Two groups of religious, despot-loving fascist nutcases. The upside is that you want to wipe each-other out. The downside is you're taking so long to get on with it, and getting us in the crossfire because you're paranoid idiots.

I couldn't care less whats at that site. Meaningless
Classic conservative ostrich behavior.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (78) Dec 29, 2011
koch, stop watching so much cartoons.

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.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Dec 29, 2011
Koch, Fascists are socialists. And I agree, socialists are nutcases.
kochevnik
3.9 / 5 (14) Dec 29, 2011
Koch, Fascists are socialists.
Good mantra for your Koch brainwashing. You should also try on for size "WAR IS PEACE," "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY," "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

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.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (78) Dec 29, 2011
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.


No, apparently you have an inability to understand history, you dolt. Historical context escapes you.
FrankHerbert
4.2 / 5 (33) Dec 29, 2011
LOL you called Muslims "cavemen". Did you realize how bigoted that made you sound? You must have, you edited it.

You're a bona fide racist for your desire to institute poll tests. Why should I be surprised you're a religious bigot as well.

"Cavemen", lmao.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (79) Dec 29, 2011
No, I didn't edit that, I don't no where that entire post went, I'll try again,...

Again with the racist charge,.. the last resort of a scoundrel incapable of understanding.
FrankHerbert
4.2 / 5 (32) Dec 29, 2011
Poll tests are racist. You support poll tests.

You are racist.

Very simple.

Like your mind.

But of course you honestly don't think you are racist. Even the most dastardly klan member doesn't think he is racist. He "just wants his country back". Or wants others "to return to their country. That's not racist!"

Despite being a racist you know how horrible racism is. That's why you can't come to the obvious conclusion that you are a racist.

You are presenting with cognitive dissonance and in order to achieve consonance you convince yourself any racist things you say are not racist. It's a defense mechanism. One that ALL racists possess. You are not unique, and you are a racist. Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards fixing it.
kaasinees
3 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2011
All ideologies are wrong. We should just live for life on earth and seek to expand beyond earth in a peaceful matter nothing less nothing more.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (78) Dec 29, 2011
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.


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

When westerners see car bombings almost on almost a daily basis in the middle east between mere flavors of islamic muslims (shi'its & sunnis), and how their caveman religious laws are imposed so brutally, and constant extreme anti-westernism displayed,.. it is a legitimate position to want such immigration to assimilate fully into western society. It should be obvious to even you that some islamic interpretations and the societies that result are entirely incompatible with western societies.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (79) Dec 29, 2011
Poll tests are racist. You support poll tests.


Frank, I beginning to think you are borderline retarded, or are on disability of some sort, or are in fact Al Sharpton.

As I said in that thread, moron, I don't support poll tests,.. I was just characterizing democratic voters. YOU brought up poll tests. Back to you slandering ways I see.

I'm not done, trying to get the moderators to read my PM's and expose you as a liar.

I see it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you. Clearly you are a child.
TrinityComplex
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2011
Guys, calm... oh never mind, it's actually kind of entertaining at this point, keep going.
Apoagogic
Dec 29, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2011
@ryggesogn2 Koch, Fascists are socialists. And I agree, socialists are nutcases.
Keep reciting that mantra like a good Koch lackey. You completely miss the fact that capitalism, communism and fascism are concerned with the PRODUCTION of goods while socialism is concerned with equatable DISTRIBUTION. Of course to a fool with a hammer everything looks like a nail.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2011
@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.
Indeed European nations with Muslim immigrants have become much more conservative over the past two decades.
@Noumenon Well gee, eveyone is trying to preserve their way of life, doh. That's not a "conservative thing".
I agree as US conservatives want wealth transferred to the 1% and the middle class destroyed.
@Noumenon It should be obvious to even you that some islamic interpretations and the societies that result are entirely incompatible with western societies.
Or, more generally, conservatives are entirely incompatible with western societies.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2011
socialism is concerned with equatable DISTRIBUTION.

Who produces to distribute?

But I digress.

Socialism/statism/fascism all use the power of the state to control private property. None of these systems care a whit about protecting individual property rights.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2011
Marjon, don't you ever get tired of lying?

Since you hate the United States so much that you refuse to stop lying about it why don't do yourself a favor and move.

Clearly you want anarchy and have made it quite clear in multiple posts that you are VERY willing to protect your property with the open end of a gun there is an ideal solution.

Move to the one place on Earth where anarcho-capitalism prevails.

Somalia.

If you have another candidate place move there instead but you have sung the praises of the wonders of Somalia so many times it is clear to all that it is perfect for you. Round up some AK-47 or perhaps since they are made by what you insist are Commie-Nazie-Progressive-Teddy followers you might prefer some home made zip guns. I can give you the formula for black powder or lots of other explosives if I can just find my copy of The Anarchists Cook Book but black powder I can do from memory. That way you wouldn't have to buy weapons from any nasty socialist nation.

Ethelred
CHollman82
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 30, 2011
All ideologies are wrong.


By definition. An ideology is supposed to be "ideal"... reality is not ideal and never will be.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2011
None of these systems care a whit about protecting individual property rights.
How would you know? I doubt you've ever had a passport.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Dec 30, 2011
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?
In any case, I had a summer internship at VTT in Espoo, Suoumi; I worked three years in Jeddah, KSA and traveled to Mexico, Japan, ROK, Philippines, Singapore, Sweden, and Norway. I know that's not very many, but I have been around the world in the Northern Hemisphere.

But, please, explain how socialism protects private property rights
kochevnik
4 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2011
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?
Top three countries with highest quality of life based on Human Development Index countries include Norway, Australia and Sweden. USA ranks 9th. All I can say is you wasted your money visiting there. Maybe you had traveler's sickness, partied on substances, chased Nordic girls, were locked in the basement by Scientologists. Whatever it was, you apparently failed to take something away from your visit(s).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2011
In Norway, the govt restricted and taxed liquor and beer so high people had their own stils and liquor flavorings were sold in stores.
My cousin's 16 cow dairy herd was heavily subsidized so he could have an easy life.
Autos were heavily taxed. In Finland, only taxis were exempt, so they drove Volvos and Mercedes. The common folk had to settle for Soviet Fiats.
If one wanted to work hard and earn more to get more of what he wanted, he was not allowed. Scandinavians who can escape the high taxes do and enjoy having a car and a nice house they can afford.

What I took away is these people drink a lot because they don't have anything better to do. The state has removed any reward for working hard, so why bother?

How does socialism protect private property?
And one more thing, in Norway everyone income is public knowledge for all to see on the web. I looked up my cousin and found his income from raising tomatoes.
tigger
5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2011
Quite funny really, we need more 'Robin Hoods' to keep things in balance... an objective assessment of the current imbalance of wealth reveals all is not well. 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. I for one am happy to hear about this and hope that 2012 brings more rebellion against the machine that appears to be driving a wedge between the haves and the have nots... with no fighting chance for those with greater skills in life, where you are born and who you know is what matters more than anything, this does not make for a productive and healthy society. Happy New Years all :D
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 31, 2011
Koch, one more tid-bit about Norwegian central planning (aka socialism), my cousin in Norway married a Norwegian from the USA. For some reason they could not have children. The only children they allowed to adopt were those from the third world.
They were classic Scandinavian blondes and wanted a blond child to adopt. Not allowed.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Dec 31, 2011
. 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.

Only for the greedy and envious.
What's wrong if the rich get richer AND the poor get richer too?
You imply 'the rich' are stealing making the the poor, poorer in absolute terms. That is not the case.
'Poor' in the US is a relative term.

Robin Hood stole from the govt providing them a tax refund. Do you support this?