EPTHowever, if the drug cartels are as ruthless as said in this thread, then anon should stop this right now!!!!! Just because they can't find actual anonymous members, doesn't mean they won't use ordinary people as hostages, forcing anon to stop.
Anonymous takes on mexican drug cartel - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
However, if the drug cartels are as ruthless as said in this thread, then anon should stop this right now!!!!! Just because they can't find actual anonymous members, doesn't mean they won't use ordinary people as hostages, forcing anon to stop. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On November 02 2011 02:26 Wegandi wrote: Legalize drugs and this would not even be an issue. This whole fiasco is Government run amok. It is hard to fathom how many deaths are caused yearly from the State. The FDA, Drug Cartels, Imperialism & War...millions at least. Uh.. English is obviously not my first language, but I really didn't get the part with "This whole fiasco is Government run amok". Care to explain? What do you mean by deaths caused by the State? Death penalty or what? As far as I know the deaths caused are mainly when dealing with the harder drug industry. Considering the damage that drugs do to people I wouldn't want it legalized. Especially not heroin, cocaine, meth etc. I highly doubt that millions die yearly by the things you listed, although it's kind of wide to pull in wars in general into the whole argument. What the hell do you even mean by imperialism? That's I think the criminals behind it would start producing whatever gave them the most profit. If you remove the profit out of producing marijuana through legalizing it (which is a popular opinion in comparison to legalizing all drugs which you kind of hinted at) they'd just start producing more cocaine, heroin and what have you. That's just what I think though. | ||
|
lvent
United States140 Posts
On November 02 2011 02:39 Dark_Chill wrote: I don't understand why everyone is being so negative. Anonymous has a very low chance to get hurt from this, while there is a chance that something may actually happen from this little threat. However, if the drug cartels are as ruthless as said in this thread, then anon should stop this right now!!!!! Just because they can't find actual anonymous members, doesn't mean they won't use ordinary people as hostages, forcing anon to stop. My negativity is in the way they will blatantly put people who stuck in a shitty situation out to dry. For every 10 people they out as "cartel supporters" how many do you think are willingly 100% backing xxx cartel? 5? and what happens to the other 5 people who are basically hostages in their own towns? They are fucked, they cant get help from local police, if they turn to the wrong person to try and get away they are done. You dont walk away from people like this free. google search result I gotta admit I am stunned with how many people think that the people in "anonymous" are these criminal masterminds that are never ever found. it's so "mind bottling" to me =/ | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On November 02 2011 05:13 Euronyme wrote: Uh.. English is obviously not my first language, but I really didn't get the part with "This whole fiasco is Government run amok". Care to explain? What do you mean by deaths caused by the State? Death penalty or what? As far as I know the deaths caused are mainly when dealing with the harder drug industry. Considering the damage that drugs do to people I wouldn't want it legalized. Especially not heroin, cocaine, meth etc. I highly doubt that millions die yearly by the things you listed, although it's kind of wide to pull in wars in general into the whole argument. What the hell do you even mean by imperialism? That's I think the criminals behind it would start producing whatever gave them the most profit. If you remove the profit out of producing marijuana through legalizing it (which is a popular opinion in comparison to legalizing all drugs which you kind of hinted at) they'd just start producing more cocaine, heroin and what have you. That's just what I think though. Since you are not American perhaps you are not aware of the myriad of the thousands and thousands and thousands of laws that criminalize pretty much every behavior. http://www.backwoodshome.com/columns/wolfe0106.html The problem of the cartels is a product of the Government Prohibition on drugs. Restore our rightful liberties and this problem disappears. You do not see Budweiser shooting up Coors do you? Same with Prostitution & all the other criminalized activities which increases costs, gives rise to violent exploitative practices, and denies justice to those in that trade. You never see a drug dealer going to the cops to report someone murdering one of his partners, dealers, or someone stealing his product do you? Same goes for those on the receiving end of the Cartel violence. If you never criminalized drugs then all those deaths by the cartels would have never happened, because the Cartels would have never existed, just like how Al Capone and Baby Face Nelson would have never existed if there was never alcohol Prohibition. Similarly, the FDA kills many millions by withholding life-saving drugs for DECADES. The average time it takes a product to reach the consumer is 15 years and billions of dollars thanks to the FDA. Imagine denying a life-saving drug for 15 years and how many lives you could have saved in that time. War & Imperialism is obvious. The US kills many hundreds of thousands each year. (Remember when Madeline Albright said the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it? -- Sanctions always hurt the people, not the State Regime) I could go on and on. A lot of people use harder drugs because it is illegal. It is the lure of forbidden lust. You see the same thing in reverse psychology. How many people are drinking moonshine today? Not that many. How about in 1930? A lot more. Keeping any product prohibited increases its consumption. In any event, it is immoral to deny another person their own faculties to make their own decisions about their own body. You have no right or authority to restrict a persons choice over their own bodies. If someone wants to do some drug that is their right. All drugs should be legalized immediately and unconditionally. The BATF should be a name of a store, not a Government agency. Edit: My point is if Anonymous wants to fight the cartels, they should be fighting for the legalization of all drugs. | ||
|
cilinder007
Slovenia7251 Posts
A lot of people use harder drugs because it is illegal. It is the lure of forbidden lust have you done any harder drugs ? cause thats totaly not why most people do them.... | ||
|
alphafuzard
United States1610 Posts
On November 02 2011 05:13 Euronyme wrote: Uh.. English is obviously not my first language, but I really didn't get the part with "This whole fiasco is Government run amok". Care to explain? What do you mean by deaths caused by the State? Death penalty or what? As far as I know the deaths caused are mainly when dealing with the harder drug industry. Considering the damage that drugs do to people I wouldn't want it legalized. Especially not heroin, cocaine, meth etc. I highly doubt that millions die yearly by the things you listed, although it's kind of wide to pull in wars in general into the whole argument. What the hell do you even mean by imperialism? That's I think the criminals behind it would start producing whatever gave them the most profit. If you remove the profit out of producing marijuana through legalizing it (which is a popular opinion in comparison to legalizing all drugs which you kind of hinted at) they'd just start producing more cocaine, heroin and what have you. That's just what I think though. There are basic economic principles why criminalizing opiates is good for drug cartels, but bad for consumers of drugs and for society as a whole. I might edit in a brief explanation later. | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
Rat out cartel supporters? rat out to who? Everybody, the government, the military, know who they are. And even then, yeah rat them out to the competition... Sure. Now you have killed people who were basically hostages, cooperate or die. Block bank accounts? They own the banks.Hell chances are that they have their hands on every form of business in Mexico I don't doubt that Anon will probably walk away unscathed from this(because if someone gets killed they always have the ability to deny that he was anon *rollseyes*) but they won't help and will likely make stuff worse. And seriously? Legalizing drugs? We might as well legalize everything because this guys are career criminals, they would still be criminals and just deal with other stuff. If you really want to help Mexico, pressure your government so that they stop selling fucking weapons to the cartel, make the US government pressure the Mexican government to clean up the corruption. What makes me even sadder is that if something comes out of this, people will be like : "Lulz anon did everything" while the people who were out protesting,denouncing and dying every day on Mexico(which BTW has more journalist deaths than war countries like Irak) get 0 credit. I don't dislike anon, but realistically chances are that the dude who got kidnapped is dead already and that they will probably do more harm than good. And as I said in my last post, they are not backwater guerrilas stuck in the mountains with no technological skill, chances are that they have hackers of their own and they don't have qualms in being ruthless to civilians. Sorry, people just don't seem to realize how stuff is here and I honestly can't say if some of you guys are trolling or not. | ||
|
Grettin
42414 Posts
So i guess we will se if these guys are actually traceable | ||
|
GypsyBeast
Canada630 Posts
Also who the hell are these two members of Anonymous, and Skill3r GlynissParoubek? and why are they entitled to cancelling the operation? i thought Anonymous had no organization? or do they just say that to sound badass? | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
| ||
|
urasyupi2
United States810 Posts
| ||
|
Supamang
United States2298 Posts
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/anonymous-vs-zetas/ Apparently one Anon member says the attacks were cancelled. Another says that the attacks are alive and well. I say that the cartel is gonna make an example of some poor online blogger or hacker regardless of whether or not the attacks are cancelled. Just as the article says, even if they cant catch Anon members I wouldnt be surprised if they get ruthless with other online bloggers just to serve as examples of what "will" happen. Anonymous wont get any support from the locals I bet. | ||
|
lvent
United States140 Posts
The Anonymous IberoAmerica website says it will form a "special task force" by invitation only to find out and publish information about cartel collaborators, a potentially deadly undertaking since rivals often kill identified members of the Zetas. The website even included a series of security steps, such as urging members to send messages through a proxy server, and never to identify themselves as part of Anonymous. The page also offers a supposedly secure widget to help protect users. ^ yes post your defense so that the people you are hunting can find weakness; that will really keep you safe  | ||
|
TBO
Germany1350 Posts
On November 03 2011 01:29 lvent wrote: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-20128981/anonymous-vs-zetas-in-clash-of-shadow-groups/ The Anonymous IberoAmerica website says it will form a "special task force" by invitation only to find out and publish information about cartel collaborators, a potentially deadly undertaking since rivals often kill identified members of the Zetas. The website even included a series of security steps, such as urging members to send messages through a proxy server, and never to identify themselves as part of Anonymous. The page also offers a supposedly secure widget to help protect users. ^ yes post your defense so that the people you are hunting can find weakness; that will really keep you safe unless they are really stupid this widget is a trojan targeted to infect those wanting to identify them. And if it isn't it is still probably just a decoy | ||
|
Grettin
42414 Posts
Bodies hanging from bridge in Mexico are warning to social media users A woman was hogtied and disemboweled, her intestines protruding from three deep cuts on her abdomen. Attackers left her topless, dangling by her feet and hands from a bridge in the border city of Nuevo Laredo. A bloodied man next to her was hanging by his hands, his right shoulder severed so deeply the bone was visible. Signs left near the bodies declared the pair, both apparently in their early 20s, were killed for posting denouncements of drug cartel activities on a social network. "This is going to happen to all of those posting funny things on the Internet," one sign said. "You better (expletive) pay attention. I'm about to get you." Read more e. as it turns out, it was a article from 14th september. ^_^ | ||
|
Paperplane
Netherlands1823 Posts
That story's from september 14th though, before they even made the announcement I think. | ||
|
Grettin
42414 Posts
On November 04 2011 02:33 Paperplane wrote: That story's from september 14th though, before they even made the announcement I think. Yep, you are right, stupid me.. But well, i doubt this will end any better, if something like this happened already. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On November 02 2011 05:49 Wegandi wrote: A lot of people use harder drugs because it is illegal. It is the lure of forbidden lust. You see the same thing in reverse psychology. How many people are drinking moonshine today? Not that many. How about in 1930? A lot more. Keeping any product prohibited increases its consumption. Less people drink Moonshine now than in 1930 But how many people drink alcohol today v. in 1930... I would say a far greater % of the population drinks alcohol now than in 1930. There are social costs to legalizing drugs (behavior of those under the influence of them affecting others, ie drunk driving accidents). Now whether those costs are comparable to illegalizing drugs (supporting criminal cartels) is definitely debatable. I'd agree in priciple allowing more freedom is good, but not always (I'm sure there are very few defenders of the second amendment would apply it to nuclear weapons, nerve gas, or weaponized smallpox) | ||
|
Mindflow
Korea (South)320 Posts
| ||
|
Rokit5
236 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + "....Nevertheless, there has subsequently been conflicting reports of whether the operation is truly backed by Anonymous as a whole, but Anonymous Mexico released the following statement via their Facebook page: “Dear Followers of this page. Through this medium Anonymous Mexico denies all responsibility about the news of the hacking of one page allegedly related to a cartel. [...] Our fight is not of this kind and our ideals are not in tune with that operation. The note published in many electronic media is completely false. We ask for your support in distributing this communique.[50]” "...Mike Vigil, the retired head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, mentioned that "Los Zetas should take Anonymous seriously."[55] Moreover, Stratfor mentioned that Los Zetas also has experts in computer intelligence who are believed to track down the "anti-cartel" campaigns online,[56] which has made experts understand the high rate of journalist executions.[57] In addition, they mentioned that the Mexican drug cartels generally have people monitor forums, news websites, and blogs to help them be in touch with what is being publish and with what could affect their interests." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Zetas_Cartel | ||
| ||
