Does it really matter who the scapegoat is? At all? A few short years ago we had scary arab terrorists, I think they're still a bigger scapegoat than anon.
Anonymous doesn't change anything as far as excuses. If they're looking for an excuse to crack down, they can always make up an Emmanuel Goldstein.
Awesome. Great way to cram them into the same sentence. They both start with "a", too!
We've already proven that if you put "Saddam" and "al Qaeda" in the same sentence enough times, you can convince a majority of the USA that they're buddies. Let's see if we can do it here, too.
More to the point.. I can't stand the logic of "they should quit attempting to fight for freedom because authorities will use them as an excuse to crack down". It's exactly backwards to me. You can disagree with their motives or goals or whatever but that particular logic is terrible.
> "they should quit attempting to fight for freedom because authorities will use them as an excuse to crack down"
Who's fighting for freedom? Anon is a bunch of man-children (or actual children) 'fighting the man' behind anonymity from their parents' basements in suburbia. It's not cool or heroic. I completely don't understand this mentality that what Anon is doing should be commended. It's vigilantism and there's a reason that's not good 'IRL'.
Also I don't know what 'freedom' Arab terrorists are fighting for. The common trope is that they're fighting 'Western imperialism', but that's insane -- the most worn out excuse that the Arab world has used for their lack of innovation or scientific contribution since 1100[1]. I hope you're fine getting blown up for their cause[2].
1. www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w (lecture from Neil Degrassi Tyson)
Anonymous doesn't change anything as far as excuses. If they're looking for an excuse to crack down, they can always make up an Emmanuel Goldstein.