Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Nancy Beazley, Apr 24, 2014.
Learn to read.
Debate or be lazy.
Dox, please...because you're wrong.
So, based on your previous statement, we now know you've already committed crimes or are the verge of doing so, since you say they're not proposed at random. Got it. [
Re-read my post you misunderstood and come back.
I'm sorry I disagree...again.
I have seen first hand what happens when the FBI decides to go after someone.
It happened to my family and to my mom whose crime was having the nerve to sue J Edgar Hoover.
Their "Targets For Justice" have much less to do with keeping anyone safe than their own political goals.
And to directly answer you point on catching someone in their natural environment, they had Sabu wired in every possible.
If they were convinced something criminal was going to happen, they already had the "Record button" pushed, so all they
had to do is wait.
They did not do that,
You can see what the FBI freedom fighters did to my mom when she was 7 months pregnant going to visit her grandmother with me in diapers
in the FBI memo.
So why are both cases political?
When the FBI had their news conference saying Anonymous has been dismantled....that was political.
It is political because the FBI contractors and political contributors got embarrassed.
They had to save face and therefore they set up Sabu (reverse that order but you get the idea)
Just as in the case of my pregnant mother who was placed under surveillance, they wanted to, in the minds of the FBI, keep their reputation.
They can;t stand being told they screwed up were wrong or anything of the like.
So they use their power to go after, and set up those they think they can get some media mileage with.
And yes I agree with Johhny R U Clear-but now you have a more in depth reason why
Thank you for proving my point.
And to avoid further misconception, I am not a fan of LE. But those performing illegal activities should be aware of the risks. IMHO, one should have an important goal to take such risks. Lulzsec / Antisec never had, AFAIK.
I'm not sure what point you think I proved. Explain please
I think AntiSec and Lulzsec did have worthy goals....they showed us a great deal of how the corporations do dirty work for the USG and try to destroy those
who disagree with them....Like Greenwald Assange, etc
That was good info for the public.
Some of the other things they did I have a hard time with, but I don;t have to agree with everything to not support them.
And the also proved my point in those OPS that the goal was political NOT terror (whatever that is)
It's not entirely black and white, but I was rooting for them because who else is going to pants the emperor?
You are correct...which is why I added I had a hard time with some of the ops....
However good was done as a result IMHO
You described one of these artificial environments I mentioned.
There is a huge legal difference in espionage and law enforcement.
The two are not legally the same.
Police/LEOs/FBI etc are supposed to apprehend those who break the law. They are not, at least until the laws were largely ignored in the last 10 years, supposed to help create crimes.
When you look at the FBI for what it is, a corporation, then you can see what it;s true goals are
How do they do that?
They make people think the sky is falling and in this case, the sky was falling because of Anonymous
So you turn your agents out to get whatever they can however they can, law be damned
, and they you claim victory
Then you go to Congress and say Cyber criminals are the greatest danger to the world's freedom
Then sell the fear
Then you ratchet up the funding
This is all because in lieu of catching a criminal in the act....you feed the crime to your target (Hammond via Sabu)
This is ALL HORSESHIT
The other part to this is politicians are then scared to cut FBI funding, and since their mission grows once again, or expands,
the contractors waiting in the wings to get the politicians re-elected get new contracts
because the FBI can't possibly man their new mandates
All the while the same contractors get the Congress to cut back on bank fraud, and securities crimes because
someone with a computer can really see what is going on in their bedroom
and doesn't like it
And now I will shut up....until the next moonbat post
Sabu and Hammond broke the law.
FBI is not a corporation.
Funny, coming from you.
Ok you suggested before someone "Learn to read"
How about doing so in context.
I NEVER said Hammond did not break the law, the way in which Hammond was entrapped is the issue.
And yes the FBI functions as a corporation, just like others.
It is not some non-profit.
To give you an example from the 58November files
When the FBI won on the trial level (prior to my mother kicking their ass in the 6th circuit)
Both the Jacksonville and Nashville FBI offices wrote the FBI HQ.
What did they want?
They wanted to get credit for the 2.5 million that did not get paid out in the law suit.
You can read the files attached.
Now the funny part is that after they lost on the 6th circuit by a 4 foot nothing widow and mother of 2
Neither FBI office asked to have their pay docked by HQ...as a matter of fact the subject was not even brought up/
,If my mom had sued the FBI for 1 Billion dollars, the FBI offices would have wanted financial credit for that as well.
It IS about funding
"Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan."
You more or less said so here:
Any human organization needs funds to work. Corporations are a specific type of organizations. FBI has no shareholders.
I mean WOW
I echo Andy
But let's play your way
When are enough funds enough?
What kind of return are the taxpayers getting for their money?
Are the funds being used effectively?
Are their successes cost effective?
What kind of bonuses are being paid?
And who do they answer to?
At least corporations do ultimately have to answer to their shareholders.
Who does the FBI answer to?
Politicians? J Edgar sorted that little problem out. Those methods haven't gone away!
A new Wired article about Anonymous. Parts lame. But parts true. Especially the "Anonymous has leaders" part. And, of course, Anonymous has no leaders. Both truths are true.
“If I get caught, I will plead guilty to the charges,” she says he told [a reporter]. “All these kids want to play hacker, but when they get a visit from the police they all turn over. They would love to get a confession out of me. The truth is that the only way is if they use my kids against me. If they say they’ll take my kids away. I will not assist them. I will go down as a martyr, not a snitch.”Notably, he also told her, “the FBI gives [informants] immunity to hack. You don’t understand [the] corruption.”The reference is significant, because the FBI has been accused of using Monsegur to direct Jeremy Hammond and others to hack multiple victims. Hammond, who was convicted of hacking Stratfor, has said Sabu directed him to hack the company and provided a list of other targets.
Way to focus on the important things, Ann O'Nymous.
Ann here is a link you may be interested in.
I will write the letter of recommendation ... they will love that coming from me.
It is easy to say what one would do when the party van comes
Until it comes
Just like those on kitteh rescue sites say they would live in their car with kittehs before turning them over (having been unable to find a landlord that takes pets or losing job and being unable to pay for their food etc)
Not so easy when it happens
Not that I am defending Sabu. I don't. A cunt is a cunt. (And he has to spend the rest of his miserable life looking over his shoulder in case anyone says boo. Ha ha)
Just being realistic
I have put a dox me challenge out there.
But I have the ease of not having done anything (other than buy weed) that I can be done for!
And no job or family I have to hide for.
And lived a life that taught me that nothing is worth that fear
As for the derogatory comments about kids ...
I am in my 50's (another clue/confirmation) and I have an awful lot of respect and admiration for what a LOT of these kids have faced and do face in reality when the party van comes.
But if he/she does just plead guilty
Then they too have my respect and admiration
That makes me want to go all Kierkegaard on their asses.
Am i reading that right, Bella?
I think that if you read carefully, the author of the article is quoting Parmy Olson.
These are excellent questions. Political and financial accountability are central issues in any country. Security agencies always have a problem with it.
It is a very old problem: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Funny, coming from you.
Please send it via PM. Thanks in advance.
Yes, you are correct. My apologies. Still, I have a real problem with the assumption that "the collective is having trouble finding its footing without new leaders to move it forward."
Parmy Olson, should know better. There are no leaders of Anonymous.
I'm not much impressed by Olson. She seems rather late to most things and hasn't seemed to have corroborated shit.
And yes, Anonymous has leaders. What do you think Sabu was? And yes, Anonymous doesn't have leaders sometimes.
The only purpose which leaders of Anonymous serve is to provide occasional e-piñatas full of lulz for the Hate Machine to whack.
JohhnyRUClear - I strongly disagree
When I paid my annual dues this year, I bought the upgraded AnonMoonBat level that assured me I would be in the leadership coucil.
Even though my good faith efforts have gone without title or status, what really pisses me off is I didn't
get my $100 gas card for renewal.
Last year you had to sent in receipts of no more that $8.00 at a time each month for reimbursement
Those checks never came.
Yet I am still here.
I think Johnny meant THE leader of Anonymous
Sorry wrong title
Captain David (i am not insane) Miscavige.
It was my sorry attempt at being Lulzy
As was mine!
If you really think that Sabu was the leader of anonymous, you should seriously lurk moar.
he was the leader. His charisma won the room over and everyone wanted to starfuck him.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!