Monday Jukebox and Press Release UPDATE: ANONS FACE MASS ARRESTS
… and a friendly reminder that the U.S. government targets and kills journalists, just as the Russian government does, and even consulted with Blair on killing a great deal more of them. Who says the “special relationship” is dead?
Meanwhile, Gregg Housh has gotten a somewhat related reminder over his latest week-long round of media interviews that the American press remains ill-equipped to cover cyberwar with any consistent accuracy; his latest press release may be found below the fold.
Even meaner while, we (by which I mean I) are still having trouble with video embeds, so you’ll just have to open up my anarchist-friendly musical selection in another tab.
Consider this an open thread and feel free to discuss how excited you are that the anarchist victory is eminent according to some Shroud of Turin enthusiast.
UPDATE
Housh sends word that a series of international raids are being planned by the various governments with an emphasis on those Anons and sympathizers who have planned any actions via IRC channels, with channel ops reported to be particularly vulnerable.
December 14, 2010IMMEDIATE RELEASEIn response to allegations in The New York Times and elsewhere naming WhyWeProtest.net in connection with Anonymous as perpetrators of the recent DDOS attacks against businesses that have withdrawn their services from WikiLeaks, a website administrator has issued the following statement:This week The New York Times, along with other publications, named WhyWeProtest.net in connection with Anonymous as perpetrators of the recent DDOS attacks against MasterCard, Visa, and other businesses that have withdrawn their services from WikiLeaks. As one of WhyWeProtest’s administrators, I take issue with this association and would like to clarify the site’s mission and its position relative to both Anonymous and these attacks.Anonymous is not an organization. There are no official Anonymous members, guidelines, leaders, representatives or unifying principles. Rather, Anonymous is a word that identifies the millions of people, groups, and individuals on and off of the internet who, without disclosing their identities, express various opinions on many topics–including the nature of Anonymous. To identify oneself as Anonymous does not imply thinking or acting in concert with others; it simply describes a way of communicating and occasionally promoting social change. To assume that any one person or group defines or speaks for Anonymous is a mistake.WhyWeProtest.net is an internet activism site that has served primarily as a worldwide hub for protests against the crimes and human rights abuses of the Church of Scientology. Some of the anti-Scientology activists who use our site identify themselves as Anonymous and some as former Scientologists. Many protect their anonymity as a matter of safety but do not consider themselves to be Anonymous.Anti-Scientology activism is WhyWeProtest’s starting point but not its sole objective. WhyWeProtest has facilitated a number of other projects, including providing support for the Iranian activists known as the Green Wave movement and creating a forum for discussion of the recent WikiLeaks controversy. The recent sharp spike in our membership attests to the worldwide concern about human rights abuses and corporate or governmental control of information. We foresee a continued escalation in the frequency and magnitude of such activism across a wide array of issues.These grass-roots movements have been a learning process over the past three years as we have engaged some of the internet’s most unpredictable users and studied the early stages of similar movements. We recognize both the strengths that make grass-roots activism possible and the human and technological failings that can stall or stop them.With all of this in mind, ultimately we hope to provide an ideologically neutral platform to facilitate and streamline discussion and collaboration amongst activists of diverse, even divergent persuasions. Rather than prescribe approaches we aim to provide flexible and accessible tools to enable activists to identify their objectives, collaborate on mutually beneficial projects, and implement their plans in a realistic, step-by-step fashion.As to methods, WhyWeProtest supports reform, not coercion. We take no position regarding the actions of others, however we explicitly do not promote or endorse strategies such as the Anonymous Denial of Service attacks. Instead, we serve as a thinktank and conduit for legal alternatives.WhyWeProtest depends not only on substantial funding. but also on the public’s understanding of our sometimes tenuous relationship to Anonymous. We remain dedicated to fighting Censorship and broadening the scope of our endeavors through legal means.WhyWeProtest’s undertaking is guided by Article 20 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which acknowledges the right to peaceful assembly and association. Beyond the core values of human rights and free speech, our efforts are not ideological, and our members express diverse political views. Our over-arching mission is to ensure and promote the right of any person to speak and act freely and conscientiously.
Anarchy is cute, but pull this on the Russians, they’d be fishing you out of a dumpster about now.
“Anarchy” seems to depend on a host society too civilized to return its tactics in kind. As long as it just sticks with the turtle people at WTO conventions, issuing manifestos, or annoying Western civilization, it’s a pretty safe hobby.
Getting serious is unlikely, since it requires concerted action in a given direction, which is anathema to “anarchy” by both manifesto and the fact that whenever a group finally divines a purpose, it immediately splits into factions.
Our over-arching mission is to ensure and promote the right of any person to speak and act freely and conscientiously.
Without judgment, of course. Sort of the Pontius Pilate approach to ethics. What are you rebelling against?
Whataya got?Report
I already pulled it on the Russians, and on their own television station to boot. The Russians didn’t do shit – at least not to me, since my own little “direct action” didn’t really matter. Like the U.S. and Britain, they kill journalists whom they see as threats. I’m not a threat.
The rest of your comment is hard for me to understand, but I’d be happy to discuss the subject further if you promise in advance not to falsely accuse me of screwing with the reply function in order to stymie your brilliant comments, as you did to James Hanley the other day; my understanding is that each of us is assigned one commenter whose job it is to libel us in the course of enjoying our free content, and I’ve already got MFarmer. It’s kind of like the Secret Santa program except I basically got a card saying “You are too young to write for major magazines so I will call you a fraud.” In conclusion, blogging is awesome.Report
Barrett writes, ”
“… and a friendly reminder that the U.S. government targets and kills journalists, just as the Russian government does….” That’s quite funny! I’m assuming you’re kidding otherwise, we’re entering the spooky tin foil hat wearing, Kool Aid drinking dimension.
I suppose you think terrorists should be able to fire on US and British soldiers with impunity, which is exactly what was happening at the Hotel Palestine on a regular basis. You know, after a while, enough is enough. And for anyone to suggest it was a deliberate attack on journalists holed up in that hotel is just laughable. With the exception of Israel, no nation in a time of war, has made a greater effort (even costing them their lives) to avoid civilian casualties than has the United States. If they want to go after journalists, why not have an accidental missile hit the New York Times. Now that would be understandable!Report
Forgot to ask you, Barrett—do you have Baghdad Bob’s phone number?Report
I think he works for Michael Steele now.Report
There are several incidents described, not just one that might be brushed off by some old coot.Report
“and a friendly reminder that the U.S. government targets and kills journalists, just as the Russian government does”
Ignoring the potential bias of Al Jazeera op-ed piece – and assuming it’s inside source is both real and accurate – shouldn’t your line be “a friendly reminder that the US government talks about targeting and killing journalists like the Russian government does, but ultimately decides not to?”Report
No, my wording is accurate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/09/pressandpublishing.IraqandthemediaReport
Barrett:
If you decided to go to a war zone and cover the fighting, odds are that you will get shot at. That is their job and they know the risks. Just like the two Reuters guys that Apache smoked.
However, the US does not kill journalists in the streets of the US like the Russians kill their journalists in the streets. Comparing the two is just fantasy.Report
Please at least glance at the article we’re discussing.Report
I read it, so what? Was there any evidence that the US was actively targeting journalists? And if even if they did, I could care less.Report
This confirms it.
I have suspected that Scott was an imperial roman for at least a few days. I’m not commenting on his ancestry just his disposition.
Consider the following:
He wants public executions.
He wants executions for people who threaten national interests by word alone.
He wants an empire.
He is obsessed with limiting citizenship.
He doesn’t care about killing journalists if it promotes the empire.
There are a few others on this site that I suspect but I’m not sure of yet. But I think I have finally figured Scott out.Report
I like the idea that an officer of the Roman army, perhaps transported to the present by some Mithraic ritual gone horribly awry, would, after learning English, take the time to comment on our humble blog.Report
Sorry, I never advocated 2, 3 or 5. I’ve made statements that are close but not quite what you quote here. The least you can do is correctly state those things I’ve actually advocated.Report
2) See Assange, Julian
3) how else to interpret 2 and 5?
5)Scott December 14, 2010 at 8:29 am
I read it, so what? Was there any evidence that the US was actively targeting journalists? And if even if they did, I could care less.
Come on man your making it too easy.
Come to think of it you have more in common
6) You think that a slave based society can fight for “freedom”
Just look for the post where you defend the lost cause mythology that the civil war wasn’t about slavery.Report
I’ve never advocated that the US have an empire, ever. Therefore number 5 is not true. As for Assange, he admits releasing the stolen docs and I am willing to believe his confession.Report
well, that is definately not good.Report
Yeah. Ironically, al-Jazeera is nonetheless accused of being a “terrorist” organization, even though we’re the ones that are bombing it. This is the sort of thing that radicalizes a lot of people in opposition to their own countrymen.Report
Two data points
1) While Fox is generally on the TV in state side offices, in ‘real’ forward deployed ops centers, Al Jazerra is the feed of choice (alternating with BBC World News)
2) US bombs have hit everything from Sudanese factories to Chinese Embassies to Canadians, so I wouldn’t take it *too* personally if I were Al Jazerra.Report
Kolohe–you’re right. It’s called death by “friendly fire”, an accident of war. Conspiratorialists see all accidents of war–if the United States is involved in some way–as cold, deliberate, murder.Report
Except that they don’t. Rather, I see an occasional incident in that light, and then others come along to helpfully explain that I see all of them in that light in order to try to depict me as HURRRRR HURRRRRR TIN FOIL HAT HURRRRRRRRRRR because that is the way of the world.Report
When you say things like “…a friendly reminder that the U.S. government targets and kills journalists, just as the Russian government does, and even consulted with Blair on killing a great deal more of them” it’s kind of hard to NOT conclude that you see all such incidents as cold, deliberate murder.Report
I consider the incidents to which I am referring as murder.Report
I’d be more excited to learn it is imminent.Report
Damnit. Look, I’m on several drugs. And anyway I’m going to leave it in out of spite, like the Underground Man.Report
Perfectly reasonable, especially given the drugs. I have long acknowledged my own need for a copy editor, and I am confident that I have made and will continue to make far more egregious errors. And I don’t even have drugs as an excuse.Report
DAR! Are you back? The world rejoices!! I’ve missed your complete unpredictivness–may it never end, or be otherwise.Report
zupi///….yous guys is smart!Report