Why does Anonymous focus so much on attacking the US government (and related rich democratic countries) when it could instead be focused on fighting the governments that are actually oppressive? Nothing the US has ever done, even at it's most oppressive, could ever compare to what North Korea does to it's own citizen's on a regular basis. I would probably be much more sympathetic towards their cause if they focused most on attacking the organizations that are the worst rather than attacking the organizations that will get them the most attention. I read somewhere that an Anonymous hacker used to fight oppressive governments in Africa. Why did he stop? Why does he all the sudden need to deface PBS because they printed negative press coverage of their favorite website, WikiLeaks?
Are they really doing this for the good of mankind or are they just trying to get attention? Anonymous though they may be, they still seem to be just trying to get on the 5:00 news.
> Why does Anonymous focus so much on attacking the US government ... when it could instead be focused on fighting the governments that are actually oppressive?
You probably didn't, but I think many people will see an obvious contradiction in that statement.
> Nothing the US has ever done, even at it's most oppressive
However North Korea is not advertising itself around the world and taken seriously as a bastion of freedom, democracy, and human rights. US is while also managing to conduct wars on all continents, drop bombs in countries we are not even at war with (Pakistan), raped South American Continent for years, installed and supported countless of brutal dictators around the world. It has tortured, killed and starved to death (via sanctions countless) countless people.
US is attacked because it exerts the most influence. If you live in Columbia you are more influenced by US policy not North Korea. And that true for many regions and countries around the world. North Korea doesn't control the internet, US does.
Reading your comment is just depressing and is a prime example of the Dunning Kruger effect. I have a PhD in economics. No other country has been responsible for lifting more people out of poverty than the U.S. For instance, China and India are eradicating poverty at record levels because of the open borders for trade with the U.S. The Four Asian Tigers became developed nations primarily through trade with the U.S. Iraq is seeing rapid growth rates in its GDP, as its own government openly embraces us and wants our troops there to stablize its country, so they can safely build its country. And guess what? It's working. Iraq's death rates are tumbling, and now it's even lower than ours. I wish you would rely on actual data and facts for your responses.
Some anonymous internet user claims they have a PhD. Quickly, everyone, throw your brains out of the window and believe everything they say.
> It's working. Iraq's death rates are tumbling, and now it's even lower than ours.
Now I am not sure if you are serious or meant your post to be sarcastic. Maybe I underestimated your subtle sarcasm. But just in case it wasn't. I wonder why was Iraq having high death rates? Was there war going there? Maybe some sanctions were imposed too? Do you know? Or is recent history not part of the economics PhD dissertation.
> I wish you would rely on actual data and facts for your responses.
Or maybe just claim I have a PhD in economics so I don't have to provide any data.
Hm, I see a dip caused by the Iran-Iraq war. Who made and sold the guns to the Iranians? I'm not sure! Then in 1991 something seems to have gone wrong. I think it was something about the US ambassador shrugging at Iraq when Iraq asked permission to stop Kuwait's slant drilling. Hm, then a massive dip followed, not sure who caused that.
But luckily the US showed up and stopped whatever evil world super power was suppressing the Iraqi economy! And just look how well off they were after the US got involved for the first time in 2003.
> Reading your comment is just depressing and is a prime example of the Dunning Kruger effect. I have a PhD in economics.
You must think you know a lot.
> No other country has been responsible for lifting more people out of poverty than the U.S.
That's like Microsoft taking credit for putting a PC in every home. In other words, claiming credit for a rising tide you were doing your best to fight.
> China and India are eradicating poverty at record levels because of the open borders for trade with the U.S.
Silly economist, there aren't open borders. Just try to move between China and the USA without unreasonably more money than a Chinese worker could earn.
Also your free trade comes with conditions attached - forced sale of resources for instance, or lowering of safety standards. More temporary income for some can't compensate a country for losing its natural resources at unreasonably low prices.
But yes, that we've outsourced production to them and lowered some existing barriers to trade has sent a lot of money their way. You seem to be operating under the trickle-down delusion though.
> Iraq is seeing rapid growth rates in its GDP,
Of course, get the resources flowing and lift the embargoes and the economy bounds up, though only to a fraction of what it would have been without the invasion.
> as its own government openly embraces us and wants our troops there to stablize its country,
Every dictator we've propped up has embraced us and thanked us for our troops - it's why we picked them.
> so they can safely build its country.
We don't have the government we want in the USA. How likely is it we've given them one they like?
> And guess what? It's working. Iraq's death rates are tumbling
We've stopped killing Iraqis? No? Oh, you just mean we just aren't killing them as quickly.
> and now it's even lower than ours
Bullshit. But even if it were it's another example of claiming credit for your limited role in cleaning up a mess you already started. In this case it just means you're bombing Pakistan more.
> I wish you would rely on actual data and facts for your responses.
I wish your PhD wasn't so narrow you were unable to see the facts for the data.
"Well, it just seems that there are millions of starving people in Africa. Isn't that a bigger hunger problem to solve than the 2000 homeless people in the city?"
"... Are you serious?"
"Why don't all of you guys in this kitchen just go to Africa, set up soup kitchens there on a bigger scale, and feed millions instead of hundreds? Surely that'd be a better use of your time!"
1. Last time I checked North Korea wasn't founded on a series of charter documents proclaiming freedom from opression being a foundational concept.
2. What other governments are doing has absolutely no bearing on the US government systematically dismantling it's citizens personal freedoms.
3. If you really think the US government at it's worst can't compare with various tin pot dictatorships around the world (including North Korea) you need to take a survey course on US history. Forced sterilization in the name of eugenics, concentration camps, genocide, political prisoners, murder, corruption... you name it, the US has done it at one time or another.
1. Significance of your statement? Surely you're not saying that brutal dictatorships are fine so long as they're not ignoring earlier "charter documents"... We don't grade on a curve here.
2. The OP point was that on a 'relative badness' scale the US is better than other governments (see N Korea), so what other governments are doing is very relevant to their point.
3. Uh-huh. It's certainly enlightened of you not to believe patriotically that the US is perfect, but let's be realistic here--anything that US has done other countries have done too. It's fine (in fact it's necessary) to point out how the US is more dirty that commonly assumed, but the proper extension of that realization isn't that every other country/government must be cleaner than we presume them to be. All countries and governments are dirty to some degree or other. The relative rule of law and openness of US society means that our dirtiness eventually becomes public; the same in not true elsewhere.
>All countries and governments are dirty to some degree or other.
Other countries haven't positioned themselves as the world's policeman and moral authority (complete with a large network of military bases), AFAIK. If you set yourself up as a standard of freedom, then it's unsurprising that others will hold you to that standard.
Of course no other nation has positioned themselves as policeman–they can't logistically or financially do it (though perhaps the US can't financially do it either...). It's certainly not from any internalized Prime Directive. If they could, they would; see CCCP 1950-1991.
As for moral authority, I completely disagree. Every nation positions themselves as a moral authority. The other nations are just so small and/or weak that nobody really cares what they say. You really perceive a world of quiet and humble non-US nations, keeping their moral views to themselves?
>As for moral authority, I completely disagree. Every nation positions themselves as a moral authority. The other nations are just so small and/or weak that nobody really cares what they say.
True... other countries would do the same thing if they could (but they can't and the US can hence the need to try to keep the US in check).
Obviously not, but while no state is completely innocent of bad behavior, there are wildly varying degrees to which they are guilty of it.
Comparing specific and often short-lived times in the US's history to the permanent, ongoing status quo of other nations is hardly an equitable comparison.
That said, I agree that the US, by its founding principles as well as its international status (both earned and self-appointed) make it more than deserving of being held to a higher standard than a rogue state. The price of freedom being eternal vigilance and all.
The US's transgressions were much longer lived (e.g. butality against Indians for 100s of years) than the DPRK's, which has only existed for ~60 years. Furthermore, the US's have had much more influence on many more people.
Notwithstanding, I'll bet the real reason is that the DPRK hasn't been actively trying to stop Anonymous and the US gov has.
In addition to the other valid points presented, here's one that just hit me:
Anonymous speaks English as their primary language. Of course Anonymous is made up of people from across the globe, but are there enough of them who a) speak/read Korean, b) care about North Korean politics and c) have the abilities to do something about it? Probably not. There are apparently enough English speakers that care about the politics of the English-speaking world that have the ability to do something about it, though.
Maybe this is a function of the distinct cultures involved, maybe it is a function of socioeconomic status, maybe it is a coincidence (doubtful), but no matter what caused it, the lingua franca of Anonymous is English. Their actions primarily affect the English-speaking world because the members of Anonymous who meet the criteria I listed above stand to benefit from it.
Does it really come as a shock that people prefer to protest the powers that are oppressing them and their friends, rather than the powers that are oppressing someone else on the other side of the planet?
No, the problem of misdirected anger is unsurprising.
And it's especially predictable with groups such as Anonymous who in their writings come off as pompous, childish, self-centred, and self-aggrandizing. Not the kind of traits that correlate with empathising with people on the other side of the planet.
Their strategy (setting aside the more base stuff that is just bullying and focussing on their attempts to appear principled and 'crusading') seems to be to latch on to easy populist targets in order to win others approval. Their politics are those of angry teenagers who've read enough Chomsky or Klein to get all riled up.
This is all well and good, but in reality the phrase "fix your own house before fixing someone else's" applies. If we can't have a good and fair government by the definition of the people, then can we really expect to fix other governments? Do we bring our own government in like we did with Afghanistan and Iraq and royally fuck up a country (not to say that those countries were in good shape in any way, nor to say we could fix them, they are pretty much dictated by oil as there have few other natural resources they can export)
I like to think if we had a good government that we can truly trust, then we can trust it to step out and assist worldwide injustices: land aid to the people fighting an oppressive government, enable communication between the oppressed, prevent the oppressive government from buying weapons, etc.
No. Human rights are the same for 'brown people' - their concerns are as important as those of privileged westerners. Their plight is much worse than that of young white hackers in the western world. Western hackers can by all means massage their egos by playing the rebellious teenager, but to claim that it's justifiably their top priority is not defensible.
Exposing DPRK as corrupt and inhuman would not surprise anyone, nor would it change anything. Short of going to war with the DPRK (we already tried this once) nothing is going to change. Wikileaks/Anon/Lulzsec will have no effect on the DPRK.
Wikileaks/Anon/Lulzsec has a huge effect on our government(s) because they can be removed and rely on a lot of soft power. If we can't get our governments to care about human rights what chance is there to get the DPRK to change?
Wikileaks/Anon/Lulzsec will have no effect on the DPRK.
I think they would actually have a very detrimental effect. In the US, we routinely blame the governments of China and Russia for hacks that could easily be perpetuated by high schoolers who live there. No doubt, DPRK would blame our official institutions, giving them much more legitimacy (at least internally, but probably internationally too) when they claim that the world is out to get them.
The world IS out to get the DPRK. They just propose different reasons then we do, apparently we don't like their freedoms and are terrified of the Juche idea. We say we don't like them because they execute minors, the mentally retarded, start wars, proliferate nuclear weapons, maintain torture camps, and jail large amounts of their populations for personal choice issues, and refuse to sign simple treaties like land mine bans.
I'm not saying the DPRK is good, I don't think they are. Just remember that gov't will give you whatever reasons you need to support whatever they want to do no matter how silly or tenuous the connection is.
Most frightening is how the DPRK regards their neighbors to the south and how they have militarized their border to prevent the free flow of people.
To start a war with another country, draw a line in the sand, militarize it and then imprison people because they want cross a line in the sand to be repatriated with their families is the mark of a very totalitarian regime. If it weren't for their military I don't think anyone would put up with this kind of behavior. The really cruel thing is that their people are impoverished by their military spending and then told that there isn't enough money for basic medical care. Even sadder than that is that what little is left after military spending is spent to fund the lavish lifestyle of the politically well connected in a futile attempt to make some pretense that their economy has not failed the vast majority of their populace.
What kind of country would buy more tanks while their vetrans, women, and children are left homeless?
What the world is proposing, namely that the DPRK stop spending so much on their military and take care of their people is really rather modest.
We could talk about how the DPRK uses its military against its people (college kids and religious sects), or uses it's vast prison complex as a labour pool. I've been told that some prisoners are being forced to labour to build new prisons and that companies in the DPRK can requisition workers from the prison pool to work for the companies and if they protest they will have their sentences extended.
Apparently Dear Leader has also requested that the courts start handing out even harsher sentences even though the DPRK leads the world in it's incarceration rate, rather than look to more progressive models such as in Europe that drastically reduce recivitism by treating convicts as people. I've even heard that even though you only have one candidate to vote for in the elections that you can still be stripped of this right if convicted of a crime, leading to a situation where vast swaths of the population cannot even participate in the ostensibly democratic process of the country.
Lets not even talk about the repressive system the DPRK uses to keep basic medicine out of the hands of those who need it. If you manage to afford medicine, you're not quite of of hock yet, even if you have a prescription you can still be jailed for drug offenses and aren't allowed to present the fact that you had a prescription at trial.
I've heard in their school system even in elementary school before the children have a chance to develop free thought that they must make group devotions to dear leader.
>Why does Anonymous focus so much on attacking the US government (and related rich democratic countries) when it could instead be focused on fighting the governments that are actually oppressive?
Why does the EFF focus on electronic communication rights rather than physical torture? Because it's a valid issue and they feel is worth the focus. If the abuses in North Korea are more important to you than the abuses of the self-appointed leader of the free world then go focus on North Korea.
What can they attack in NK? Most governments that are truly oppressive don't have the kind of web presence and dependence on the Internet that make anonymous-style exploits viable.
The same reason class action lawsuits don't go after mom and pops. You target where the money and power are, and where they are mutually misused to gain the other.
Speaking truth to power falls under definition #2 of Patriot:
"a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government. "
You must be a troll. What the fuck good is taking the issue to your local congress person going to do? The majority of voters wanted the public option and made this know and what happened? The US government is owned by the rich corporations and has been for years. The "rules" they lay down for us to follow are just so many rat mazes that lead no where but let the naive feel like they're doing something meaningful.
You incorrectly assume that I recognize the legitimacy of their system.
Even if I did, do you want to know what issues I couldn't have taken care of by those people? Nearly anything that has industry lobbying behind it. They don't give a shit about individual "citizens", why should they?
Well lets be frank here. Yes, other governments are worse then our own (US) government. Yes, the governments dealings generally negatively effect much less of the US population then most really realize. That all said, the United States of America is supposed to be the best, most fair, most democratic and most self governed (by the people.) This just isn't the case anymore, what with the massive amount of people we have compared to what we had when the founding fathers first drafted our governing systems, the ridiculously up and down economic situations we seem to get ourselves into (by the way this ones just as much the people's fault as the governments. If you don't believe me start spending your money better and you soon realize life isn't that hard on a low income.) and our biggest fault of all, arrogance in thinking we have it right and trying to enforce our democratic ways(that obviously aren't working.) on other people, wasting valuable money and resources we could be using for say, better education, better public transport or maybe even leveraging technology to alleviate common problems. (that's an entirely different subject I won't get into.)
In Summary, we (the American government and people to an extent) think we are better, our hubris is our downfall and we use the excuse of we aren't as bad as A to justify an act of B. Sure North Korea's government is straight up tyrannical, but we aren't the best, if we were this wouldn't be happening.
>Are they really doing this for the good of mankind or are they just trying to get attention?
They're, presumably, trying to get attention for the good of mankind. "Get attention" is literally the only [1] useful thing Anonymous is actually capable of doing, remember -- they can release documents to bring them to people's attention, make statements to influence people's opinion, etc. There is no need to inform people that the government of North Korea is corrupt, because everyone already knows it's corrupt. It'd be like informing people that oxygen is a really nice thing to breathe.
The prospect for literally "attacking" most organizations is kind of weak. Most of the corrupt governments in the world aren't very technologically advanced, so disrupting their computer systems wouldn't do much good. I'm sure Anonymous would love to go after Blackwater, I [and probably they] just have no idea how Anonymous could go after Blackwater.
[1] -- okay, not only. The alternative is interfering with military systems resp. affecting a war, but this is far more difficult, dangerous, and just generally a bad thing.
>I read somewhere that an Anonymous hacker used to fight oppressive governments in Africa. Why did he stop?
I don't think he stopped. He just isn't getting press coverage at the moment.
Would you tell someone who fights, for example, poverty in the US that he or she could instead be focusing on fighting poverty in development countries?
It's just trying to shift the blame by pointing out another problem. This doesn't make the problem at hand (growing oppression in western countries) magically go away.
> Why does Anonymous focus so much on attacking the US government when it could instead be focused on fighting the governments that are actually oppressive?
Because the US government is much easier to reform. It pays at least some lip service to freedom.
The only hope for this planet is for its supposedly advanced nations to actually adhere to their foundational practices and shine a path to modern living for the rest of the world.
When these same are governed by a thinly disguised global oligarchy that increasingly looks like a forom of internationalist neo-feudalism and where these same dukes and what not invade and kill abroad in the name of the painfully obviously disregarded principles and stated ideals, we as a are going to continue to face insecurity and injustice as a systemic outcome of our duplicitous selves.
North Korea does not have an internet. Practically, they simly can not focus on North Korea with the aim of rooting up the North Koreans to revolt against their government.
>Why does Anonymous focus so much on attacking the US government (and related rich democratic countries) when it could instead be focused on fighting the governments that are actually oppressive?
I think a very large chunk of the world would tell you that the US is the most oppressive one. NK is oppressive to its own people, but the US' oppression goes far beyond its own borders.
Everyone, except the North Korean people, has easy access to information about the North Korean goverment and their missdeeds but secret infos about the US goverment or global corps doesn't get mentioned in main stream medias. And these have definately a lot more influence on all of our lifes than the Nort Korean goverment.
I see LulzSec and Anonymous more as fighting the concept of the super states as we see them today rather than a specific government in general.
By attacking the US they are attacking the instance which is most familiar / easiest / offers biggest impact, but not necessarily claiming the agency they attack is the worst in the world, ever.
Are they really doing this for the good of mankind or are they just trying to get attention? Anonymous though they may be, they still seem to be just trying to get on the 5:00 news.