3 ms·
Interesting that they would cancel when many other de-centralised organisations would be pretty resilient. In fact, losing a member to the enemy would cause an
by Joakal 15y ago
Interesting that they would cancel when many other de-centralised organisations would be pretty resilient. In fact, losing a member to the enemy would cause an outcry and drive more to join the cause.
eg Taliban, Al Qaeda, IRA, guerrillas, and more.
Whoever cancelled the operation just confirmed to the adversaries that they're easy to squash and immediately put the cause at risk. Adversaries are now more confident to risk further resources if it means they can destroy the cause.
They chose unwisely.
- sliverstorm 15y agoAnonymous is not a paramilitary group. I doubt their members are willing to put their life on the line for the cause. Decentralized paramilitary groups are hard to fight because you can track down & kill members without hurting the group- not because you cannot track down & kill members.
- AJ007 15y agoI would say that being involved in hacking that would result in your becoming a felon, getting extradited, and/or going to jail for over 5 years qualifies as putting your life on the line.
- sliverstorm 15y ago"Men with guns will come and arrest you because you broke esoteric law" seems very surreal and a lot less intimidating than "Men with guns will come and kill you because you pissed them off". Don't forget the part where the Zetas have set a very, very strong precedent, while the FBI haven't. I can say even for myself I would take the FBI over the Zetas any day of the week.
- epicureanideal 15y agoPerhaps they need an Armed Anonymous branch.