9 ms·
Notepad ++ hacked for Je Suis Charlie comments(web archive link)
- NANDXORNOR 12y agoReligion of 'cyber'peace
- otec 12y agoTrue, France killed 10x times more ppl in Libya than those terrorists in Paris.
- sosuke 12y agoI'll never understand that logic, how does coming to the aide and support of a group that was brutally attacked mean that they are in turn attacking the group that did the attacking? The attack on Charlie was not defensive, defacing the Notepad++ site is not defensive. Defending yourself doesn't mean attacking, and certainly not harming, other people. You only draw more hostility and attacks. Edit: I am also curious, the language indicates that the hackers feel it is countries versus religion. The actions of someone who believes in a religion do not define the religion. If I do a terrorist act and say it was for my religion, that does not make my religion a terrorist, but it does make me a terrorist. Do the perpetrators of these attacks feel it is countries against religion, or is that just the shield they want to use.
- danbruc 12y agoIslamic extremism is a relatively new phenomenon, early 20th century. And it has pretty little to do with religion, it's more some kind of revenge for what we, the western world, did to them. Indonesia is the country with the largest Islamic population in the world yet there is little extremism and - it may of course be coincidence - the western world did never much care about them although they have a lot of oil, too. Religion is just the means to an end. All my personal opinion of course, I am by no means an expert on history or religion.
- sremani 12y agoOf course, but you are not entitled to personal facts. Islamic extremism is a 7th century phenomenon and it never went away.
- danbruc 12y ago7th century? This is pretty immediately after the inception of Islam. What happened during that time frame?
- EGreg 12y agoIt seems the QuRan (like the Communist manifesto etc) provided an ideology that drove people to conquer and feel good about it. There have been many reasons to expand and conquer in the past, and they were all usually driven by some ideology. Hellenism, Communism, are two examples. The political idea that a society should be run according to the principles of Islam is sometimes called "Islamism". A huge reason there isn't much "Christianism" today is that the New Testament was written by people who didn't have much power and so focused on peaceful proselytizing. That is not to say that the Church and other institutions didn't at times wield great political power and seek to maintain it. But rather that the WRITINGS advocate for more like anarchism than a philosophy that encourages converting others by the sword. Judaism has never placed emphasis on proselytizing - whether by the sword or not. It had a much more exclusive character so there is no sense that Jews living in a democratic country would dream of converting that country's structure to one that follows the rules laid out in the Torah. So Islam in a political and cultural sense is closer to Communism than Judaism and Christianity. And we see much of the same dynamics. McCarthyism in the USA and the Red Scare are now replaced with fear of radical Islam.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> It seems the QuRan (like the Communist manifesto etc) provided an ideology that drove people to conquer and feel good about it. It seems like the Bible did that, too. I mean, have you even casually glanced at the history of the West? > The political idea that a society should be run according to the principles of Islam is sometimes called "Islamism". A huge reason there isn't much "Christianism" today is that the New Testament was written by people who didn't have much power and so focused on peaceful proselytizing. "Christianism" is one of the solid bases of support for the political Right in the USA. To say that there isn't much of it in the world is, well, completely misguided. > But rather that the WRITINGS advocate for more like anarchism than a philosophy that encourages converting others by the sword. If you view the "writings of Christianity" as the New Testament only, that might be defensible, but actual Christians generally don't, and much Christianism -- which is nowhere near as elusive as you make it out to be -- is based very strongly on particular interpretations of the Old Testament (and particular interpretations of the New Testament that make those interpretations of the Old Testament valid for Christians.) > It had a much more exclusive character so there is no sense that Jews living in a democratic country would dream of converting that country's structure to one that follows the rules laid out in the Torah. Yeah, I mean, its inconceivable that, for instance, a Jewish-majority democracy would, for instance, prohibit grocery stores from remaining open on Saturday's because of the importance of maintaining the Sabbath [0]. [0] http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.601972 http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.601972
- pen2l 12y agoI'll play 'devil's advocate' here for a moment. I'll be sacrificing a lot of internet points, but I'm not in a great position to begin with. :) Do let me pre-emptively say: I unequivocally condemn the recent killings of the cartoonists. I unequivocally support the right of anyone to say anything. Okay, so there is something to consider here: indeed there are now more than a billion Muslims in the world who would not have killed these cartoonists, or even approve of the act of killing these cartoonists (I understand some will take issue with the latter part of my statement, this is just my current reading). Insofar as the 'I am Charlie' statement can be interpreted as approval of the supposedly offending cartoons, the statement could be said to be needlessly confrontational. It's turning things into a combative us (non-Muslims) vs them (Muslims) orientation. Look no further than this very cartoon for proof of this -- this is how these Muslim hacktivists interpreted Notepad++'s 'I am Charlie' stance. I don't think this is strictly a freedom of speech issue. I saw a good example of this in a Reddit comment: when you enrage someone by calling them racist epithets, and they strike you back ... are the rest of you going to take the racist's side by repeating the racist epithet that invoked the retaliation? Mohammad is a very sacred symbol to Muslims, re-publishing offending material (and similarly approving of the cartoons by saying "I am Charlie") is just needlessly insulting and distressing the plenty of other moderate Muslims. The more this is done, the more those moderate Muslims will feel pressured and start to feel the need to also take a position... and guess whose side they will incline towards? They're surely not going to just throw away their religion, they'll probably verge toward an extremist position. I'm only suggesting that the 'I am Charlie' sloganeering is a little too hastily thunk, a little too unthought. Of course absolutely everyone should have the right to say such a thing, but a mature and reasonable person would practice caution before saying it. I do admit though, that it's a bit of a challenge packing a sentiment like "I don't think Charlie cartoonists should have been killed, they should have the right to say or mock anyone, but I do generally disapprove of content that's racist, antisemitic, holocaust-denying, sexist, etc." into a nice 3-5 word long slogan.
- tenementfunster 12y agoWhy is it so many bleeding heart liberals (coming from a fairly liberal person) defend a religion that treats women as second-class citizens so much? What's in it for them besides the right to be preachy?
- yaddayadda 12y agoTo be very clear I'm am not defending the attack on Notepad ++! > Defending yourself doesn't mean attacking ... Here in the U.S. there's a common sports phrase, "The best defense is a good offense." This carries over into our military policies. For example, while other countries may benefit from our military presence, the reason we send our military into a situation is to protect the U.S.. There may be an immediate benefit of protection or it may be a long-play protection (e.g. "placate the nationals so we aren't contributing to the future pool of terrorists"), but ultimately we send our military in to protect ourselves and this is frequently a preemptive defense that can be seen as offensively attacking. Again, I'm not condoning any terrorist attack, I'm just not buying your statement that "Defending yourself doesn't mean attacking..." I'm also not saying that preemptive offense is a moral correct policy; just that it is a common policy.
- danbruc 12y agoWhat the United States are doing in the Middle East is not morally okay. Not even close. At best it kind of works. EDIT: If you have 45 minutes, here [1] is a show by German political cabaret artist Volker Pispers rushing through half a century of history with heavy focus on the USA in the Middle East. With English subtitles. It's a disturbing mix between fun and contempt for mankind. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG0Ql0VfcRg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG0Ql0VfcRg
- yaddayadda 12y agoI think there are very few cases where the use of military force is unambiguously morally okay.
- danbruc 12y agoI am more thinking about things like the Iraq War, a invasion without any justification besides a bunch of lies.
- mc32 12y ago>how does coming to the aide and support of a group that was brutally attacked mean that they are in turn attacking the group that did the attacking? It's in the same way an abusive parent will see a child defending the abused parent as attacking the abusive parent --when what the child is doing is defending the other parent.
- EliRivers 12y agoLittle children, watching their heroes murder people and then playing at being big men by writing on the internet. Defacing something so amateurishly that if I stuck it on my fridge people would ask if my five year old child did it. To be taken about as seriously.
- _mgr 12y agoCareful. These "Little Children" are showing us more and more how violent and ruthless they can be. And the arrogance of your end statement reinforces their point. Clearly English isn't their first language yet you belittle them and call them children. You said it best, big man, writing on the internet.
- agumonkey 12y agoThey are childish. A child can be very violent, it's still a child. I don't think EliRivers was talking about their english, but mostly their actions.
- EliRivers 12y agoCareful. These "Little Children" are showing us more and more how violent and ruthless they can be. They defaced a webpage. I don't consider that to be very violent. In a fistfight, I'll take a club with a nail in it over the awesome power of defacing a webpage every time. I do not belittle them for a poor grasp of English (which, actually, is not very poor). I belittle them because they defaced a webpage, and with a very childish message. It says little more than "I was here".
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- hetman 12y agoI do not believe vandalism is covered under freedom of expression.
- sosuke 12y ago>I suppose they were exercising their right to freedom of expression... I'm sure they would be offended. freedom of expression, freedom of speech, was first declared an inalienable right during the French Revolution of 1789. http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_...
- hetman 12y agoSamuel Huntington's thesis about the Clash of Civilisations has been thoroughly criticised since he originally proposed it, and yet in some ways the world is increasingly taking the shape he imagined. It would have been wise to treat it as a warning and take precautionary measurers instead; perhaps it is not too late.
- hansjorg 12y agoSome people are hard at work making it reality. Conflict is profitable in so many ways.
- ddod 12y agoIt was criticized on academic and theoretical grounds. In his field (International Relations) there are hundreds if not thousands of people all producing a lot of dialogue and research relating to overarching models for how states interact. They've been at this for a very long time. If you want a book deal, though, you ditch all of this work and just paint broad, easily-digestible strokes over everything. In this case, he's throwing social constructivist research into norms and sub/super-state influencers out the window and claiming the world runs on civilizations. You can probably think through how this might not be the case by considering the role of economics, individuals, and strategic alliances in international politics.
- hk__2 12y ago> Because the last notepad++ version (6.7.4) named "JE SUIS CHARLIE" ! > So you think that Islam is terrorist ! I don’t understand the transition between these two lines. You’ll also note the space before punctuation marks, which is typical of French speakers writing in English (e.g. “something !” instead of “something!”). This is not a surprise, since those who defaced the site claim to be from Tunisia, a country where most of the population speak French.
- agumonkey 12y agoAre you sure about the punctuation argument ?
- dguaraglia 12y agoI've never seen that, and I have a bunch of French friends I communicate with in writing in a regular basis.
- TisButMe 12y agoI'm French, I think I can speak/write English reasonably well, but I still have to correct myself sometimes over punctuations rules, yes. The rule I was taught is "every punctuation character that has a part over the writing line has a space before it".
- cbd1984 12y ago
- kevinchau 12y agoWhen will hackers learn web design beyond geocities?
- savanaly 12y agoI know right, we have bootstrap for a reason!
- k-mcgrady 12y agoSlight OT but I think relevant. The latest cover of the Charlie Hebdo magazine has been published [1]. [1] http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/01/12/mahomet-en-une-du-charlie-hebdo-de-mercredi_1179193 http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/01/12/mahomet-en-une-d...
- yaddayadda 12y agoArticle translated to English : https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.liberation.fr%2Fsociete%2F2015%2F01%2F12%2Fmahomet-en-une-du-charlie-hebdo-de-mercredi_1179193&edit-text= https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev...
- jevinskie 12y agoFrom the archive of the hacked site: "So you think that Islam is terrorist !" From the explanation of the "Je suis Charlie" release note: "For this reason, Je suis Charlie, not because I endorse everything they published, but because I cherish the right to speak out freely without risk even when it offends others." Clearly the Notepad++ team is blanket targeting Islam. /sarcasm
- Exuma 12y agoSo idiotic. Why do you need to go about defacing the site of a random text editor. I'd be pissed, but not as pissed if it were vim.org ;0
- kungfooguru 12y agoEveryone seems to be missing the point. They list terrible atrocities that don't get even close to the same outcry from the world as the attacks in Paris.
- mieses 12y agoThe hackers should have also listed the Battle of Tours (732) and the Battle of Vienna (1683) where many Muslims were killed by insensitive Europeans. Where's the outcry about that? tl;dr - You're confused about the definition of terrorism.
- gonvaled 12y agoState terrorism, anyone? Sure not, it is not terrorism if you get the right do define it!
- mieses 12y agoterrorism or not terrorism? [ ] 9/11 [ ] US drone attacks [ ] Charlie Hebdo [ ] Pearl Harbor [ ] Hiroshima [ ] mugging [ ] insult Neither you nor I get the "right" to redefine words as we see fit after they have been defined. Invent another word. "State terrorism" could be a rather contentious term for "war" and calls into question your motives.
- sevkih 12y agoI hope they deface http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ next, possibly improving the current design and pissing of the STALLMAN, drawing the first blood. I'll tell ya folks, when #JeSuisGnu is trending, full wrath of Stallman will be unleashed, then and only then the world will know real religious fanaticism. ISIS aint got shit on alt.religion.emacs
- wbienek 12y agoSeems like the best way to root out terrorists is to post Mohammad everywhere and go after the people who have a problem with it. It's an easy way to root out extremists. These people don't even understand why Mohammad didn't want his picture public..it is so people wouldn't 'WORSHIP' him.. making fun of him as "just a man" is not worshiping him.. It is in bounds.. The nut balls should attack people who make comic illustrations WORSHIPING and RESPECTING Mohammad.. Because that is what he (Mohammad) didn't want people to do. Its just whack a doodle stuff.. Actually I think these nut balls (Violent Muslims) are disenfranchised people and really are just using the "Mohammad" thing as an excuse to go nuts.
- wbienek 12y agoSeems like the best way to root out terrorists is to post Mohammad everywhere and go after the people who have a problem with it. It's an easy way to root out extremists. These people don't even understand why Mohammad didn't want his picture public..it is so people wouldn't 'WORSHIP' him.. making fun of him as "just a man" is not worshiping him.. It is in bounds.. The nut balls should attack people who make comic illustrations WORSHIPING and RESPECTING Mohammad.. Because that is what he (Mohammad) didn't want people to do. Its just whack a doodle stuff.. Actually I think these nut balls (Violent Muslims) are disenfranchised people and really are just using the "Mohammad" thing as an excuse to go nuts.
- noddingham 12y agoThis post reminds me of the good old days of the attrition.org mirror, not sure how it's relevant for HN though.
- gaelow 12y agoJE SUIS CHARLIE is a movement that condemns killing. It is a movement for freedom and freedom of expression. Some people seem to be pissed off because the killings that started the movement were not the ones that happened before or will happen later. That's plain stupid.
- oceandon 12y agoAfter reading comments about this topic, I see a pattern, people blaming religion or/and country for atrocities on human beings. We are human beings first, so trying to justify killing your fellow human being because of religion/country or for wealth suggests we have lost our way and soon we will have another world war and many more after that. Let’s learn to forgive and instead of killing lets have dialogue