Anonymous Hacks NATO, Promises to Act Responsibly

28

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

f104chrome

NATO, lol. This planet is corrupt and thats the bottom line. Everyone who posted here is corrupt as am I. As human's our favorite thing to do is tell other's what is right while doing as we please. We all find ourselfs telling other's how great what we believe in is, be it cpu's or countries or football teams or gods, for some reason were driven to it. NATO means nothing to anyone except those that believe in it.

 

avatar

TerribleToaster

 

First things first, you declaration that everyone is corrupt, including yourself, is self defeating. It is the same as saying that "everyone is a liar, myself included, and thus this is a lie."(this stems from the fallacy of the concept of truth as relative and the positioning of an absolute truth at the same time)

 

"As human's our favorite thing to do is tell other's what is right while doing as we please." 

You seem to being mixing up human nature and corruption.

If everyone voiced their opinions and view on everything and always tried to lobby for what they want most, then you couldn't ask for a more perfect world as that is called the perfect democracy. Corruption comes from misinformation (a.k.a. a lack of understanding), people ask for things they don't want thinking they do, due to lack of information or false information inputs. Due to this, it is quite possible for people to be more or less corrupt than another person based on their understanding of other people.

 

"We all find ourselfs telling other's how great what we believe in is, be it cpu's or countries or football teams or gods, for some reason were driven to it. " 

Everything is relative and subjective? So you are a believer in relativism? All values are equally false and thus they are all equally true? Well then let me quote Plato:

"My opinion is: Truth must be absolute and that you Mr. [f104chrome], are absolutely in error. Since this is indeed my opinion, then you must concede that it is true according to your philosophy."

Have fun with that.

"NATO means nothing to anyone except those that believe in it."

Weirdly enough, even if you don't believe in NATO, because NATO believes in itself, they can still affect you, even though you don't believe in them!

 

avatar

medavid16

They should do something useful like target Netflix or Time Warner, they keep raising their monthly rates! wtfbbq

avatar

d3v

Well they should release the data. If it means more dead christian extremists then so be it.

avatar

Caboose

*facepalm*

Go troll somewhere else!

avatar

bpstone

ROFL They have a legion coming after their little asses now. (^_-)'

avatar

SYL808

NATO hacks Iran's nuclear organization, then Anonymous hacks NATO's confidential files. If hacking is such a bad thing to do, why wasn't NATO criticized for their actions?

avatar

TerribleToaster

1.) NATO was critized for their actions.

2.) Their justification was suspicious activity they observed (and had overwhelming record of, photographic and otherwise) that Iran refused to answer for.

The justification Anon just gave for their hack is "because we can and we want to fuck with you".

avatar

SYL808

1) I must of missed it. 

2) The same justification when US claimed Iraq had Mass Weapon of Destruction? C'mon, who are you kidding here? The only justification here is that US is stronger than Iran and it will do whatever it want because nobody can do sh*t against it. And while we're on the topic, why isn't it ok for Iran to have nuclear power while some other countries can? Ok... maybe this question is not adequate for a tech forum.

Now, I am not applauding for what Anonymous did; nor am I one of them (seriously). I do agree you that Anonymous is up to no good and should be stop. From a SA's standpoint, NATO was just as bad.

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

They need nuclear power because there is a shortage of oil in the Middle East.

avatar

d3v

Actually you aren't far off. You see because of western sanctions Iran has a shortage of oil refining capacity. So no they have no shortage of crude oil but they can't refine enough of it to meet their needs. So despite being a crude oil exporter Iran has to import petrol and other refined fuels for its domestic needs. That is why it is pursuing nuclear power so that it can shift its refining capacity away from fuel for thermal power plants and towards fuel for transportation.

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

They need nuclear power because there is a shortage of oil in the Middle East.

avatar

TerribleToaster

"I must of missed it. "

NATO is criticized for doing anything (that includes doing nothing). It's not surprising you would miss it.

"The same justification when US claimed Iraq had Mass Weapon of Destruction?"

Yup, except with more evidence, but basically yes.

"C'mon, who are you kidding here?"

Nope.

"The only justification here is that US is stronger than Iran and it will do whatever it want because nobody can do sh*t against it."

They can only do whatever they want (within the bounds others have already set) if they can convince others of probable cause. It's because they are good at doing this that they are strong and not so much beacause they are strong that they are good at doing this.

"And while we're on the topic, why isn't it ok for Iran to have nuclear power while some other countries can?"

They can have nuclear power as long as they complie with the UN standars and inspectors (which they don't) that are there to make sure nuclear power doesn't become nuclear weapons. Because Iran is not willing to show that they aren't developing nuclear weapons no one trusts them.

"Ok... maybe this question is not adequate for a tech forum."

No, it isn't.

"Now, I am not applauding for what Anonymous did; nor am I one of them (seriously)."

Ok.

"I do agree you that Anonymous is up to no good and should be stop."

Ok.

"From a SA's standpoint, NATO was just as bad."

From the Taliban's PoV, the western world is the land of demons. PoV is only useful if it is your own. The other thing is hypocrisy doesn't make for a good arguement.

avatar

yu119995

He asked "...who are you kidding here?" and you responded with, "Nope?"  WTF?  When someone asks you for the time do you respond with. "Because"?  Your other points were absolutely asinine with no basis in fact as well.  Brutal.

avatar

TerribleToaster

I'm sorry you didn't pick up on it but I was making fun of his/her out of hand dismissing that NATO could possibly have any good reason to hack Iran looking for information about nuclear weapons by responding in a likewise manner. I have no respect for conspiracy theorists, especially when they offer no reasoning for their theories.

"Your other points were absolutely asinine with no basis in fact as well."

If you think so you should explain why, otherwise I could say something like "I can tell from your post that your mother is a pink & white poke-a-dot goldfish" and that would have to be accepted. Reasoning is necessary when you make a claim or statement.

"Brutal."

Banana.

avatar

yu119995

I'll try English.

You respnoded with, "Nope" to "C'mon, who are you kidding here?"  That's what I was commenting on initially.

"I'm sorry you didn't pick up on it but I was making fun of his/her out of hand dismissing that NATO could possibly have any good reason to hack Iran looking for information about nuclear weapons by responding in a likewise manner. I have no respect for conspiracy theorists, especially when they offer no reasoning for their theories."

Nope.

"If you think so you should explain why, otherwise I could say something like "I can tell from your post that your mother is a pink & white poke-a-dot goldfish" and that would have to be accepted. Reasoning is necessary when you make a claim or statement."

Others have already refuted most of what you had to say.  There's no sense in repeating it.  I thought you read them already though.  You repsonded to them didn't you?

"Banana."

Sunglasses.

avatar

TerribleToaster

 

"I'll try English. You respnoded [...]" 

C'mon, you have to admit that is hilarious.

But nice try at trying to insult my intelligence, I'd would have responded in kind, but I don't think I could say anything better than that what you already have. Plus, I don't see how this has anything to do with the orginal arguement.

 

'"I'm sorry you didn't pick up on it [...]." 

 

Nope.'

 

So you picked up on it and decided to write up your post anyway? That seems mightly odd.

 

"Others have already refuted most of what you had to say.  There's no sense in repeating it."

Can you tell me where/who has refuted me and on what grounds? Or are you going to keep dancing around and avoiding saying anything worthwhile? It's pretty depressing that you can't even cite an example. This is probably one of the most vivid examples of a homunculus argument (your argument is presented through an unnamed and unspecified middle man and never discusses how exactly this middleman has gone about proving or disproving anything) that I have ever seen.

" I thought you read them already though.  You repsonded to them didn't you?"

This is called a loaded question. What makes this one quite funny is that, regardless of any answer I could give, it shouldn't at all stop you from being able to show/remind me of these in anyway; or point out how any responses I gave failed to refute them. Hence it is really a red herring disguised as a loaded question.

 

For all that statement is worth, you might as well as simply typed "You're wrong!" and saved some data. If you do respond to this try actually explaining yourself by stating: what's wrong, where it's wrong, and how or why it is wrong, before citing the reasoning. Otherwise there is no point to this discussion.

"Sunglasses."

The Sung lasses.

 

avatar

SYL808

"NATO is criticized for doing anything (that includes doing nothing)."

yeah, like what?

"It's not surprising you would miss it."

i must of been living in a cave...

"Yup, except with more evidence, but basically yes."

it would be devastating if we can't put gas in our car.

"They can only do whatever they want (within the bounds others have already set) if they can convince others of probable cause. It's because they are good at doing this that they are strong and not so much beacause they are strong that they are good at doing this."

having a bigger stick than the other guy is only probable cause you need, right?

"They can have nuclear power as long as they complie with the UN standars and inspectors (which they don't) that are there to make sure nuclear power doesn't become nuclear weapons. Because Iran is not willing to show that they aren't developing nuclear weapons no one trusts them."

so guilty until proven innocent? i thought the world ran differently. 

"From the Taliban's PoV, the western world is the land of demons. 

they hate the world, i get it.

"PoV is only useful if it is your own."

yes, that was my pov.

avatar

avenger48

"yeah, like what?"

NATO has been heavily criticized for their interference in Lybia.

"having a bigger stick than the other guy is only probable cause you need, right?"

Since when did a country need international approval to start a war?  The only reason the UN and NATO have any real power is because of the U.S.  It's absurd that the U.S has the world's most powerful army and has to jump through 300 hoops of Eurasian regulatory bullshit to use it.  What's wrong with using OUR military that WE paid for without the approval of places like France, China, and Russia?  Why should we need to talk to the UN or NATO when we want to use our stick against another country?

As for the guilty until proven innocent comment, I would rather not have nukes in the hands of terrorists, something that will likely happen if a country who hates the U.S as much as Iran does gets them.  The difference between a country like the U.S, U.K, or even Israel having them is that those countries aren't likely to use them on me.  Since when was it wrong to look out for one's own intrests?   

avatar

yu119995

You're right.  The US should invade every and all nations that have what they need.  Fuck yeah!!   You know what?  If I were in charge I'd just say fuck it and kill em all.  Oil, precious metals, mineral deposits!  OURS! OURS! OURS!  Who needs to hide behind false flag operations in order to get global (and public) approval when we can just come out and say: "We want what you have.  Stay out of our way.  Fuck you and your people.  You're irrelevant anyway."  That's fucking brilliant!  Let's do it!!!

avatar

TerribleToaster

 

Seeing as your blind hatred for anything American (which is ironic seeing you’re on an internet site about computers) has, well, blinded you from the point of what he said. I'll sum it up for you.

 

America doesn't need to do the international hula-hoop contest in order to go after someone, they choose to do it. The US has the largest military in the world; which is, in worth, the size of the next 15 largest militaries combine (most of which are staunch allies of the US anyway).

If the US felt like it, they could go anywhere and do anything and no one could do much of anything to stop them. They choose not to and makes fools of themselves in the process, in order to try and promote a better world. And the significance of this is that, if America was par for the course, people would expect them to do whatever they wanted with their power.

You seem to forget that in this world, it use to be "might makes right", you can thank the US for changing that.

 

avatar

TerribleToaster

Another point is that the US, Russia, France, China, and every other country that uses nuclear power comply with the UN regulations. They have to be inspected too; everyone is expected to show you aren't trying to make weapons that could single handily destroy the entire world. Security doesn't work on the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty because if you assumed all were innocent to begin with, there would be no need for security. Security works on the idea that everyone is a suspect, and you have to find ways to make sure you can trust people. Iran refuses to give anyone any reason to trust them, and considering that it is possible for billions of people (if not all the world) to be killed if they are making nuclear weapons and a conflict starts, you want to put absolute trust in them, higher than is put in any other nation or person in the world?

avatar

yu119995

Yeah.  We woudn't want Iran to be the second nation in this planet's history to use nuclear weapons now would we.  Could you imagine the devastation?  I mean look at what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  We certainly wouldn't want that again.

avatar

TerribleToaster

Yes, we won't.

By the way, you should stop acting like an ass, or else people will perceive you as such and it will severely limit what you can do in life.

avatar

lindethier

I agree with this completely ^_^

avatar

TerribleToaster

 Could you shed some light onto what NATA is?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is totally the way to prove your just a group of responsible protestors.

avatar

steakkills

Sounds like a bunch of children

avatar

Caboose

They are. A Bunch of immature kids who think they're so cool!

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.