Quote Originally Posted by Cannoneer No. 4 View Post
No sooner than Inaugaration Day, 2013, and probably not then. Do you want to give them martyrs?
Yes. Number one qualification for martyrdom is death. That's a good start.


U. S. sovereignty isn't directly threatened. The PERSEC of a senior civil servant and of a serving Marine are directly threatened. Harrassment is not terrorism. Anonymous is very different from Al Qaeda. Anonymous is not a monolithic, organized organization. Some are bad, some are good, some bad Anons are good some days, mosts Anons are low skilled cannon fodder but some have real skills. Not prudent to ignore them, but not a good idea to make more out of them than they really are.
Cannot agree with you here at all. These people are threatened directly because of the work they do at the behest of the Government. The threats and actions against them are in direct response to the exercise of their job. This is classic terroristic action. Cow someone into not doing what they should be doing by direct or indirect threat. Terrorists, however they manifest their evil, should be dealt with harshly and without mercy.

"Anonymous" has to show they are a force for good. I put them in the same category as "moderate Islam". We've heard of it, and people claim they are, but they never seem to have much to say against the bad actors.

If Cyberspace is truly to be treated as a discreet warfighting function, we cannot pussy-foot around with these caveats and differences.

So, Smersh Spionem (Smersh hacker-em?) to folks like this.