'This Is No Longer Your World'

Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:23 pm » by **Freeyourmindnow**

NATO has poked the bear of the internet (which responded by announcing that it's actually a hydra).

Anthropomorphic confusion aside, a NATO security report about "Anonymous"—the mysterious "hacktivist" group responsible for attacks on MasterCard, Visa, PayPal, Amazon and, most recently, Sony—has led the underground group to respond by cautioning NATO, "This is no longer your world. It is our world - the people's world".'

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/716/440/ ... orld.html=

Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:29 pm » by **Freeyourmindnow**

"We do not wish to threaten anybody's way of life. We do not wish to dictate anything to anybody. We do not wish to terrorize any nation.

We merely wish to remove power from vested interests and return it to the people - who, in a democracy, it should never have been taken from in the first place.

The government makes the law. This does not give them the right to break it. If the government was doing nothing underhand or illegal, there would be nothing 'embarassing' [sic] about Wikileaks revelations, nor would there have been any scandal emanating from HBGary. The resulting scandals were not a result of Anonymous' or Wikileaks' revelations, they were the result of the CONTENT of those revelations. And responsibility for that content can be laid solely at the doorstep of policymakers who, like any corrupt entity, naively believed that they were above the law and that they would not be caught.

A lot of government and corporate comment has been dedicated to 'how we can avoid a similar leak in the future'. Such advice ranges from better security, to lower levels of clearance, from harsher penalties for whistleblowers, to censorship of the press.

Our message is simple: Do not lie to the people and you won't have to worry about your lies being exposed. Do not make corrupt deals and you won't have to worry about your corruption being laid bare. Do not break the rules and you won't have to worry about getting in trouble for it."

:think:

Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:44 pm » by **Thedude69**

Beforeitsnews is a shit site. Sorry, but any source link from there is enough to invalidate any text preceding it.

Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:47 pm » by **Theoracle**

freeyourmindnow wrote:"We do not wish to threaten anybody's way of life. We do not wish to dictate anything to anybody. We do not wish to terrorize any nation.

We merely wish to remove power from vested interests and return it to the people - who, in a democracy, it should never have been taken from in the first place.

The government makes the law. This does not give them the right to break it. If the government was doing nothing underhand or illegal, there would be nothing 'embarassing' [sic] about Wikileaks revelations, nor would there have been any scandal emanating from HBGary. The resulting scandals were not a result of Anonymous' or Wikileaks' revelations, they were the result of the CONTENT of those revelations. And responsibility for that content can be laid solely at the doorstep of policymakers who, like any corrupt entity, naively believed that they were above the law and that they would not be caught.

A lot of government and corporate comment has been dedicated to 'how we can avoid a similar leak in the future'. Such advice ranges from better security, to lower levels of clearance, from harsher penalties for whistleblowers, to censorship of the press.

Our message is simple: Do not lie to the people and you won't have to worry about your lies being exposed. Do not make corrupt deals and you won't have to worry about your corruption being laid bare. Do not break the rules and you won't have to worry about getting in trouble for it."

I agree nice post freeyourmindnow :flop:

peace and love theoracle

Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:17 pm » by **Freeyourmindnow**

thedude69 wrote:Beforeitsnews is a shit site. Sorry, but any source link from there is enough to invalidate any text preceding it.

no problem dude, you can find this info also on other news-sites :flop:

Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:20 pm » by **Freeyourmindnow**

theoracle wrote:
freeyourmindnow wrote:"We do not wish to threaten anybody's way of life. We do not wish to dictate anything to anybody. We do not wish to terrorize any nation.

We merely wish to remove power from vested interests and return it to the people - who, in a democracy, it should never have been taken from in the first place.

The government makes the law. This does not give them the right to break it. If the government was doing nothing underhand or illegal, there would be nothing 'embarassing' [sic] about Wikileaks revelations, nor would there have been any scandal emanating from HBGary. The resulting scandals were not a result of Anonymous' or Wikileaks' revelations, they were the result of the CONTENT of those revelations. And responsibility for that content can be laid solely at the doorstep of policymakers who, like any corrupt entity, naively believed that they were above the law and that they would not be caught.

A lot of government and corporate comment has been dedicated to 'how we can avoid a similar leak in the future'. Such advice ranges from better security, to lower levels of clearance, from harsher penalties for whistleblowers, to censorship of the press.

Our message is simple: Do not lie to the people and you won't have to worry about your lies being exposed. Do not make corrupt deals and you won't have to worry about your corruption being laid bare. Do not break the rules and you won't have to worry about getting in trouble for it."

I agree nice post freeyourmindnow

peace and love theoracle

Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:53 pm » by **Boondox681**

We merely wish to remove power from vested interests and return it to the people - who, in a democracy, it should never have been taken from in the first place.

ok.i have no problem with the removal of power from 'vested interests'.
i'm worried about what will replace them.
it says 'return it to the people'...have you seen the people lately?

'nuff said :flop:

peace

Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:26 am » by **Theoracle**

boondox681 I got a sneaky suspicion that is just a minority ,but I could be wrong

peace and love theoracle

Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:36 am » by **Mrmcnuggets**

Honestly if the un goes after anonymous, they're failing as a system to do what anonymous has had to step up to do. They cannot say a word about it, they have incriminating evidence of the whole worlds monitory system and how corrupt it really is. Everything put into films about global conspiracy, and the need to take a stand. Well they did it. And also stated no harm will come to a person, now how can they even argue that when they have been using bullets with depleted uranium in them. Bring every thing down, flood the world if it takes it, these abominations need to be removed.

Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:06 am » by **Thedude69**

mrmcnuggets wrote:Honestly if the un goes after anonymous, they're failing as a system to do what anonymous has had to step up to do. They cannot say a word about it, they have incriminating evidence of the whole worlds monitory system and how corrupt it really is. Everything put into films about global conspiracy, and the need to take a stand. Well they did it. And also stated no harm will come to a person, now how can they even argue that when they have been using bullets with depleted uranium in them. Bring every thing down, flood the world if it takes it, these abominations need to be removed.

People are too dumb to care whatever the evidence is.