An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation
Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.
Click here to read in high quality the associated emails.
White House perhaps slipped up, but did say the Hillary investigation was a criminal case the same day that Barack Obama endorsed her.
How Clinton Donor Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board
ABCNews: Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.
The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.
Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.
A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.
“We had no idea who he was,” one board member told ABC News.
State Department A State Department photograph shows the 2011 International Security Advisory Board. Rajiv Fernando is seated on the far left of the image.
Fernando’s lack of any known background in nuclear security caught the attention of several board members, and when ABC News first contacted the State Department in August 2011 seeking a copy of his resume, the emails show that confusion ensued among the career government officials who work with the advisory panel.
“I have spoken to [State Department official and ISAB Executive Director Richard Hartman] privately, and it appears there is much more to this story that we’re unaware of,” wrote Jamie Mannina, the press aide who fielded the ABC News request. “We must protect the Secretary’s and Under Secretary’s name, as well as the integrity of the Board. I think it’s important to get down to the bottom of this before there’s any response.
“As you can see from the attached, it’s natural to ask how he got onto the board when compared to the rest of the esteemed list of members,” Mannina wrote, referring to an attachment that was not included in the recent document release.
Fernando himself would not answer questions from ABC News in 2011 about what qualified him for a seat on the board or led to his appointment. When ABC News finally caught up with Fernando at the 2012 Democratic convention, he became upset and said he was “not at liberty” to speak about it. Security threatened to have the ABC News reporter arrested.
ABC News
At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, ABC News’ Brian Ross asks Rajiv Fernando about his 2011 appointment to the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board.more +
Fernando’s expertise appeared to be in the arena of high-frequency trading — a form of computer-generated stock trading. At the time of his appointment, he headed a firm, Chopper Trading, that was a leader in that field.
Fernando’s history of campaign giving dated back at least to 2003 and was prolific — and almost exclusively to Democrats. He was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 bid for president, giving maximum contributions to her campaign, and to HillPAC, in 2007 and 2008. He also served as a fundraising bundler for Clinton, gathering more than $100,000 from others for her White House bid. After Barack Obama bested Clinton for the 2008 nomination, Fernando became a major fundraiser for the Obama campaign. Prior to his State Department appointment, Fernando had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation, and another $30,000 to a political advocacy group, WomenCount, that indirectly helped Hillary Clinton retire her lingering 2008 campaign debts by renting her campaign email list.
The appointment qualified Fernando for one of the highest levels of top secret access, the emails show. Among those with whom Fernando served on the International Security Advisory Board was David A. Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group and United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector; Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a former National Security Advisor to two presidents; two former congressmen; and former Sen. Chuck Robb. William Perry, the former Secretary of Defense, chaired the panel.
“It is certainly a serious, knowledgeable and experienced group of experts,” said Bruce Blair, a Princeton professor whose principal research covers the technical and policy steps on the path toward the verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons. “Much of the focus has been on questions of nuclear stability and the risks of nuclear weapons use by Russia and Pakistan.”
The newly released emails reveal that after ABC News started asking questions in August 2011, a State Department official who worked with the advisory board couldn’t immediately come up with a justification for Fernando serving on the panel. His and other emails make repeated references to “S”; ABC News has been told this is a common way to refer to the Secretary of State.
“The true answer is simply that S staff (Cheryl Mills) added him,” wrote Wade Boese, who was Chief of Staff for the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, in an email to Mannina, the press aide. “Raj was not on the list sent to S; he was added at their insistence.”
Mills, a former deputy White House counsel, was serving as Clinton’s chief of staff at the time, and has been a longtime legal and political advisor.
Four minutes later, Boese wrote to his boss, Richard Hartman, to alert him that Ellen Tauscher, who was then the Undersecretary for State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, would be meeting with Mills to devise a response to the ABC News request.
“Sorry this has become a headache,” he wrote.
Hartman wrote the next morning to say he would “come up and brief you… about where Raj Fernando stands and the ABC News investigative journalist inquiries. You do need to hear about it.” Separately, in an email to another official, Hartman noted that it was “Cheryl Mills, who added Mr. Fernando’s name to the list of ISAB nominees.”
When ABC News sent a follow-up inquiry about the qualifications of another board appointee, Massachusetts state Rep. Harold P. Naughton, Jr., Boese wrote to Hartman to say the department would have a far easier time explaining Naughton’s credentials. “The case for Rep. Naughton is an easy one. We are on solid ground,” he said.
By this point, Fernando himself had been looped into the discussion. He and Hartman exchanged emails, but the entire text of Fernando’s letter was redacted by the State Department prior to its release.
Twice, Mannina was instructed to stall with ABC News, before Mills sent a public statement. It announced Fernando’s abrupt decision to step down.
“Mr. Fernando chose to resign from the Board earlier this month citing additional time needed to devote to his business,” it reads, noting that membership on the board was required to be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee.”
“As President and CEO of Chopper Trading, Mr. Fernando brought a unique perspective to ISAB. He has years of experience in the private sector in implementing sophisticated risk management tools, information technology and international finance,” the statement says.
The statement was emailed to ABC News two days after Fernando’s resignation and four days after the initial ABC News inquiry.
Fernando’s letter of resignation to Clinton says he “intended to devote a substantial amount of time to the work of ISAB in furtherance of its objectives. However, the unique, unexpected, and excessive volatility in the international markets these last few weeks and months require[d him] to focus [his] energy on the operations of [his] company.”
Additional emails collected from Hillary Clinton’s personal server only hint at her possible involvement in Fernando’s selection to the board. The records request for documents about Fernando’s appointment produced a chain of correspondence from 2010 with the subject line “ISAB” — or International Security Advisory Board. In those, Mills writes, “The secretary had two other names she wanted looked at.” The names are redacted. Mills then forwarded the response to “H,” which is the designation for Clinton’s personal account. Three minutes later Clinton forwards the email chain to another State official and says simply, “Pls print.”
The Clinton campaign declined requests from ABC News to make Mills available for an interview. Campaign spokesman Nick Merrill deferred to the U.S. State Department, which issued a statement saying the board’s charter specifically calls for a membership that reflects “a balance of backgrounds and points of view. Furthermore, it is not unusual for the State Department Chief of Staff to be involved in personnel matters.”
Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty Images
Cheryl Mills, former State Department chief of staff under former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, attends a House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing in Washington, Oct. 22, 2015. more +
Fernando did not respond to messages left by ABC News at home and mobile numbers listed for Fernando, nor to a letter left at the office of his current business.
As is customary with a new administration, the make-up of the board changed substantially when Clinton took over the State Department, according to Amb. James Woolsey, who served on the panel from 2006 to 2009. But the seriousness of its mission remained the same.
He said the board’s primary purpose was to gather an array of experts on nuclear weapons and arms control to constantly assess and update the nation’s nuclear strategy.
“Most things that involve nuclear weapons and nuclear strategy are dealt with at a pretty sensitive basis — top secret,” he said, noting that participants meet in a secure facility and are restricted in what materials they can discuss.
That is not typically the realm of political donors, Woolsey said. Though, he added, it would not be impossible for someone lacking a security background to make a contribution to the panel. “It would depend on how smart and dedicated this person was… I would think you would have to devote some real time to getting up to speed,” he said.
Fernando is now a board member of a private group called the American Security Project, which describes itself as “a nonpartisan organization created to educate the American public and the world about the changing nature of national security in the 21st Century.” He also identifies himself online as a member of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and says he’s involved with a Washington think tank.
And he continued to donate to Democrats, and to Clinton. He emerged as one of the first “bundlers” to raise money for Clinton’s 2016 bid. And in July 2015, he hosted a fundraiser for Clinton at his Chicago home. Fernando has also continued to donate to the Clinton Foundation. He now is listed on the charity’s website as having given between $1 million and $5 million.
About six months after Fernando resigned from the State Department advisory board, he was invited to attend a White House State Dinner, honoring the British Prime Minister. And this summer Fernando will serve as a super delegate at the Democratic National Convention. According to Chicago media reports, he has committed to supporting Clinton.
ABC News’ Andrea GonzalesPaul contributed to this report.
Rep. Westmoreland: No Democrat Members Attended Yesterday’s Witness Interviews
June 10, 2016
Press Release
Washington, D.C. — Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03), a member of the Select Committee on Benghazi and Chairman of the Subcommittee of the NSA and Cybersecurity on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, released the following statement after none of the five Benghazi Committee Democrats showed up for either of yesterday’s interviews with drone sensor operators from the time of the attacks, including “John from Iowa”:
“It’s a shame none of the Democrat members of the Benghazi Committee showed up to hear what these two service members had to say about their service to our country on the night of the Benghazi attacks.”
“Democrats belie their own political motivation and lack of interest in conducting a serious investigation when they would rather accept briefings provided by the Pentagon than talk to the actual Air Force operators who were conducting missions over Benghazi that night. Since not a single Democrat member could be bothered to show up to hear what the sensor operators had to say, I find it surprising their spokesman is so willing to mischaracterize the witnesses’ testimony. In fact, the operators were able to tell the committee what they were directed to look for, what information they were focused on gathering, what information was relayed up the chain of command and what capabilities the drones possessed. Video footage the administration refuses to let the American people see and briefers instructed what to say cannot do that.
“Chairman Gowdy wants answers under oath and he wants them quickly—a subpoena accomplishes both. The Democrats and administration incessantly whine about the committee’s length, so they shouldn’t be surprised when the committee cuts to the chase.”
The dishonest Democrats are falsely claiming the Benghazi Committee “waited … 659 days” to specifically request the Department of Defense (DOD) find “John from Iowa.” But the truth – as made clear by the timeline of events the committee released yesterday – is that DOD was unable to comply with the committee’s February 26 request for relevant drone personnel. So on March 24, the committee sent DOD a list of outstanding requests and noted an investigator trying to gather any publicly available information about relevant drone personnel came across a news report about “John from Iowa,” an individual who called into a talk radio show in May 2013 and claimed to be a drone sensor operator on the night of the attacks.
In other words, the committee requested “John from Iowa” as soon as it became aware of him.
The February 26 and March 24 dates are confirmed by an email from DOD staff to the committee acknowledging the timing of the committee’s requests.
Select Committee Subpoenas Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger
June 10, 2016
Press Release
Washington, D.C. — Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (SC-04) released the following statement after the committee subpoenaed Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger, a Pentagon political appointee, to testify in private, under oath on Wednesday, June 15:
“This Pentagon political appointee claimed in an official letter to the committee the Department of Defense could not find a requested witness, despite expending ‘significant resources’ searching for him. This witness is still on active duty and confirmed Thursday the Air Force knew exactly who he was – a drone sensor operator who was operating over Benghazi on the night of the attacks. Mr. Hedger will now have the opportunity to detail exactly what ‘resources’ he ‘expended’ and how. I look forward to him explaining the serious questions that have arisen with respect to this matter, including whether they are related to incompetence or deliberate concealment of the witness from a congressional inquiry.”
In his April 28 letter to Chairman Gowdy that was leaked to the press, Hedger stated he “would appreciate a meeting with you at your nearest convenience to discuss these issues[.]”
In response, Gowdy wrote that the “overtly partisan” letter “intentionally mischaracterizes both the nature of the Committee’s investigation and its interaction with the Department of Defense. It is also riddled with factual inaccuracies, which not only does a disservice to the public but also does a disservice to the women and men who work for the Department of Defense.” He stated that Pentagon political staffers are “welcome to waste taxpayer dollars writing partisan, factually deficient letters to our committee, coordinate the language with House Democrats, and then leak it to the media,” but that “will not prevent this committee from interviewing all witnesses who can help us write the final, definitive accounting of what happened before, during, and after the attacks that killed four Americans in Benghazi[.]”
On May 20, three months after the committee’s request, the Department of Defense provided a complete list of names of drone personnel from the time of the attacks. While it is unclear if the Department knew at the time it had finally provided the name of “John from Iowa,” the committee did. Based on this drone sensor operator’s testimony to the committee Thursday, it now appears the Department had knowledge well in advance of who and where John was. In fact, the Department had been in contact with him regarding his public statements prior to the committee’s request. The committee intends to question Hedger about this discrepancy and other matters.
Emails in Clinton probe dealt with planned drone strikes: WSJ
Reuters/WSJ: Emails between U.S. diplomats in Islamabad and State Department officials in Washington about whether to challenge specific U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are at the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side” -government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters – as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a CIA drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law enforcement officials briefed on the FBI probe, the Journal said.
Some of the emails were then forwarded by Clinton’s aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said, according to the newspaper.
Investigators have raised concerns that Clinton’s personal server was less secure than State Department systems, and a recent report by the State Department inspector general found that Clinton had broken government rules by using a private email server without approval, undermining Clinton’s earlier defenses of her emails.
The still-secret emails are a key part of the FBI investigation that has long dogged Clinton’s presidential campaign, the officials told the Journal. Clinton this week clinched the Democratic presidential nomination for the Nov. 8 election.
The vaguely worded messages did not mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets, officials said, according to the Journal.
The emails were written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger, the officials said, according to the newspaper.
Law enforcement and intelligence officials said State Department deliberations about the covert CIA drone program should have been conducted over a more secure government computer system designed to handle classified information, the Journal reported.
Context at the time:
Pakistan UAV attacks have become one of the Obama administration’s signature efforts in the terror war. Although the CIA does not divulge how many drones it operates, press reports suggest the agency has as many as 16 such systems. But in the early days of his presidency, Barack Obama was advised by at least two former high-ranking CIA officers not to over-rely on the use of drones.
Former CIA analyst Bruce Riedel, commissioned by the president to review US policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, concluded that robot airplanes could only function successfully when allied to high-quality “on the ground” intelligence.
That view was shared by General Michael Hayden, CIA director at the start of the Obama presidency. In his book Obama’s Wars, Bob Woodward recounts how Hayden believed that “The great lesson of World War II and Vietnam was that attack from the air, even massive bombings, can’t win a war.”
Noah Shachtman, contributing editor of Wired.com, warns that the lesson of not having troops on the ground could be over-learned: “The idea that any terrorist problem could be solved by drones alone just isn’t realistic. Drones are only as effective as the human informants who tell them where to strike.” For him, a drones-only policy could become “a way of maintaining political cover and a veil of secrecy over operations that might ordinarily be wide open”. More here.
**** Additionally for later context:
NPR: In 2013, President Obama tightened rules for drone strikes in order to reduce civilian casualties. NPR’s Audie Cornish talks to Wall Street Journal correspondent Adam Entous who learned that the president secretly waived the new rules for CIA operations in Pakistan.
In 2015: The killings revealed last week of two hostages – an American and an Italian – have raised new questions about how the CIA operates in Pakistan. Warren Weinstein and Giovanni La Porto were aid workers. They were killed in January by a U.S. drone strike aimed at al-Qaida militants. The Wall Street Journal reports the CIA conducted that strike under a secret waiver approved by President Obama in 2013. Obama laid it out in a speech at National Defense University in 2013. And he didn’t reveal all the rules. The actual guidance that he issued is – remains classified. But he did talk about three of them. He said that operations targeting individuals needed to have near certainty that there would be no civilians killed or injured in those strikes. He also said that the CIA and the Pentagon, when conducting strikes like this, need to know that there is an imminent threat to the United States posed by the militants that they intend on targeting. And another guideline that he laid out was the idea that the United States is not going to kill people in order to punish them for acts that they did in the past. This is about preventing them from attacking the United States or U.S. persons or assets overseas in the future.
Pakistan is important because this is the staging area for al-Qaida and other militant groups that are looking to cross the border into Afghanistan and attack American forces there. Attacking al-Qaida in Pakistan is a way to prevent them from later attacking U.S. forces across the border. So the White House and the president said that there would be a thorough review of this incident in order to ensure that mistakes like this do not happen again. And within this debate within the administration, several members of the president’s inner circle are making the case that now is the time to rein in the program.
But it’s really hard to tell what direction this is going to go in the end because of strong support, not only within the administration for the drone program and wanting to have the flexibility to use it, but also within the Congress. You have very powerful committees, members of the president’s own party, who very much support this program and don’t want to see it go away. Additional information here.
So the most liberal circuit court in the land has rendered a 7-4 decision on the 2nd Amendment and has applied modern day political correctness and Obama/Democrat policy to interpreting the spirit of a Constitutional protection. This will be appealed to the Supreme Court sometime in the near future.
Judge Fletcher
Clearly to show danger, the only response as I see it should have been ‘San Bernardino’. If that is not enough, mention Tel Aviv, Paris or Brussels, or Garland, or Boston…..
No constitutional right for concealed guns: California appeals court
Reuters: Firearm owners have no constitutional right to carry a concealed gun in public if they face no specific danger, a divided federal appeals court in California ruled on Thursday, in a victory for gun control advocates.
The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sets a legal precedent in western states, was seen as unlikely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future.
The San Francisco-based court, in a 7-4 decision, found San Diego and Yolo counties in California did not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to bear arms, when they denied some applicants a concealed firearm license.
“We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public,” Judge William Fletcher wrote in a 52-page opinion.
The two California counties had limited their permits to applicants showing “good cause” to be armed, such as documented threats or working in a wide range of risky occupations.
The ruling places the 9th Circuit Court in line with other U.S. appellate courts that have upheld the right of officials in the states of New York, Maryland and New Jersey to deny concealed carry applications in certain cases.
Under California’s concealed carry law, more than 70,000 residents or less than 1 percent of the state’s population had active permits last year, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2013, in the middle of a raging national debate on guns, declined to weigh in on whether firearm owners have a constitutional right to carry their weapons in concealment outside the home.
Gun rights group the California Rifle and Pistol Association declined to provide immediate comment.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Consuelo Callahan wrote that the court had gone too far in limiting the right to concealed firearms. “The Second Amendment is not a ‘second class’ amendment,” she wrote.
If plaintiffs appeal, the Supreme Court may refrain from reviewing the case because other U.S. circuit courts have also upheld certain requirements for concealed carry permits, said University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Adam Winkler in an email.
The decision by the full 9th Circuit reversed a 2-1 decision in 2014 by a panel of the appellate court that found California residents have an inherent right to a concealed weapon for self defense.
The decision:
Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties, sought to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but alleged they were denied licenses to do so because they did not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties.
Under California law, an applicant for a license must show, among other things, “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. Appellants contend that San Diego and Yolo Counties’ published policies defining good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The en banc court held that the history relevant to both the Second Amendment and its incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment lead to the same conclusion: The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry – including a requirement of “good cause,” however defined — is necessarily allowed by the Amendment. The en banc court stated that there may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, but the Supreme Court has not answered that question. Read the full opinion here.
Terrorist groups acquiring the cyber capability to bring major cities to a standstill, warns GCHQ chief
Terrorists and rogue states are gaining the capability to bring a major city to a standstill with the click of a button, the Director of GCHQ has warned.
Hostile groups are acquiring the capability to launch devastating attacks, warns HanniganCredit: TELEGRAPH
Telegraph: In a rare public appearance, Robert Hannigan said the risk to cities like London would increase as more physical objects, such as cars and household appliances, are connected online – the so-called “internet of things”.
developing the kind of cyber programmes that could attack the UK, but that terrorist groups were also looking to take advantage of the technology.
“At some stage they will get the capability,” he said.
“There are certainly states and groups with the intent to do it, terrorist groups, for example, who have no threshold when it comes to the loss of life.
“We’re not quite there yet, but as the world becomes ever more connected that will become a greater risk.”
Speaking as the controversial Investigatory Powers Bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons, Mr Hannigan also defended the surveillance of internet activity by the intelligence services, saying seven attacks against the UK had been foiled in the last 18 months due to bulk data analysis.
******
Simple Explanation of Internet of Things
Islamic State issues anti-hacking guidelines after Anonymous threats
The warning was put out via Telegram, an encrypted instant messaging app, on the Khilafah news channel, which is thought to be an unofficial pro-ISIS news source.
Nick Kaderbhai, a research fellow from the think tank told the Huffington Post UK, “Anyone can subscribe to it (technically) however the more IS channels you subscribe to the more open you are to investigation.”
The message was titled #Warning, and said “The #Anonymous hackers have threatened in new video release that they will carry out a major hack operation operation on the Islamic state (idiots).”
ISIS sent out a message on encrypted chat app Telegram with instructions to avoid being hacked Photo: Huffington Post UK
Instructions included warnings to use VPN, a tool ot make the user’s location online, and to change IP address constantly. It also told members to avoid using direct messages on Twitter, because is is open to hackers.
“Do not make your email same as your username on Twitter this mistake cost many their accounts…so be careful,” it read.
The hacker collective, which consists of unrelated volunteers, coders and activists from around the world, launched its anti-Islamic State online campaign, called #OpISIS, after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris last January.
Making good on its threats, Anonymous posted a list of roughly 800 Facebook, Twitter and email accounts believed to be related to ISIL on Monday.
To date, according to an in-depth investigation by Foreign Policy, they have taken down 149 Islamic State-related websites and exposed 101,000 Twitter accounts and 5900 propaganda videos.
