The Anonymous hacktivist group has taken responsibility for a powerful cyber-attack on the Turkish sector of the internet last week. It promised to continue waging cyber warfare on .tr domains until Ankara stops the “insanity” of supporting Islamic State. 
 
 The massive Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack on Turkish websites last week, initially attributed to spooky “Russian hackers,” has been clarified with Anonymous issuing a video claiming responsibility and declaring cyber war on Turkey for supporting terrorists of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL). 
 
 The DDoS attack (measured in gigabits per second, or plainly how much traffic is being sent to a site) on Turkish DNS servers reached 40 Gbps, quite enough to shut down altogether any domain. 
 
 The attack began on December 14, and came to a halt only a week later, on December 21. Turkish media alleged that 400,000 .tr domains were forced offline. 
 
 READ MORE: ‘More devastating than any nuclear war’: John McAfee on the coming cyber war with ISIS 
 
 The affected websites were able to return online only after Turkey’s leading National Response Center for Cyber Events cut off all incoming international traffic to the .tr websites, thus shutting down national “internet borders,” completely and denying “anybody outside the country access to Turkish websites,” Anonymous pointed out. 
 
 “This mass cyber-attack is known to be the biggest so far with the intensity of slowing down the websites,” ODTÜ Computer Engineering Professor Attila Özgit said as cited by Hurriyet Daily News. 
 
 The hacktivists claim the attack on Turkey was conducted within the framework of the counterterrorist cyber operation #OpISIS. The basic message behind the attack is that Turkey’s woes with the internet are set to repeat unless Ankara revises its policies towards Islamic extremists. 
 
 “We won’t accept that [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, the leader of Turkey, will help ISIS any longer. The news media has already stated that Turkey’s internet has been the victim of massive DDOS attacks,” SAID a cloaked figure in the video wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. 
 
 “Turkey is supporting Daesh [Arabic pejorative for Islamic State] by buying oil from them, and hospitalizing their fighters," the hacktivist in the video said. “If you don’t stop supporting ISIS, we will continue attacking your internet, your root DNS, your banks and take your government sites down. After the root DNS we will start to hit your airports, military assets and private state connections. 
 
 ‘We will destroy your critical banking infrastructure. Stop this insanity now, Turkey. Your fate is in your own hands.” 
 
 In early December, Russia presented proof that Turkey is deeply involved in illegal oil trafficking and trade. Ankara has consistently denied this, despite the presented video evidence made by Russian drones and warplanes. 
 
 READ MORE: Russia says Turkey’s Erdogan & family involved in illegal ISIS oil trade ||||| Wall Street 5 Reasons Glass-Steagall Matters November 16, 2015 Twitter 
 
 Facebook 
 
 Email Link 
 
 The Glass-Steagall Act came up as a major point of disagreement between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton during Saturday’s Democratic presidential debate. The Act, which was originally enacted in 1933, separated risky trading and investment from traditional banking activities like business lending and consumer finance. 
 
 1933. “Anthony Adverse” and “Magnificent Obsession” were topping the bestseller lists. “King Kong” and the Marx Brothers were big at the box office. What does a law passed back then have to do with the 21st century economy? 
 
 As it turns out, a lot. 
 
 Bernie Sanders wants to implement a new version of the Act, which was repealed in 1999 after having been in effect for more than 75 years. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is not calling for its reinstatement. 
 
 Sen. Sanders is right. Here are five reasons why it is important to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act. 
 
 1. Too-big-to-fail banks are bigger, riskier, and more ungovernable than ever 
 
 America’s largest banking institutions are even larger now than they were before the 2008 financial crisis. The nation’s six largest banks issue more than two thirds of all credit cards and more than a third of all mortgages. They control 95 percent of all derivatives and hold more than 40 percent of all US bank deposits. 
 
 Simon Johnson, former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, points out that Glass-Steagall is needed as part of a broad effort to make these banks “simpler and more transparent.” Johnson also observes that 
 
 “In the run-up to the 2008 crisis, the largest US banks had around 4% equity relative to their assets. This was not enough to withstand the storm … Now, under the most generous possible calculation, the surviving megabanks have on average about 5% equity … that is, they are 95% financed with debt.” 
 
 As Johnson makes clear, these banks continue to pose a grave risk to the economy. He also notes that they have continued to engage in sanctions violations and money laundering – behavior which suggests that they are still out of control. 
 
 2. The argument that Glass-Steagall didn’t cause the 2008 financial crisis is wrong. 
 
 Hillary Clinton told the Des Moines Register that “a lot of what caused the risk that led to the collapse came from institutions that were not big banks.” This is part of a longstanding pattern, in which she largely absolves the big banks from culpability for the 2008 crisis while emphasizing “shadow banking” in her own Wall Street plan. 
 
 Secretary Clinton returned to that theme during Saturday’s debate, pointing an accusing finger at non-bank entities like AIG and Lehman Brothers while giving a pass to Wall Street’s biggest banks for their role in the crisis. 
 
 Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s former Labor Secretary, summarized the anti-Glass-Steagall argument as follows (without naming Hillary Clinton specifically): 
 
 “To this day some Wall Street apologists argue Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented the 2008 crisis because the real culprits were nonbanks like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.” 
 
 He follows that with a one-word response: “Baloney.” 
 
 Reich makes an important point: “Shadow banks” like AIG and Lehman, which largely function outside the normal bank regulatory system, are a major problem. But the 2008 financial crisis became a systemic threat specifically because too-big-to-fail banks were underwriting the risky bets these companies made. And why were the big banks able to do that? 
 
 Because Glass-Steagall had been repealed. 
 
 3. Repeal of the Act has not worked as promised. 
 
 Given the risks associated with the repeal of Glass-Steagall, what about the benefits? Turns out there aren’t many. 
 
 We were told that repealing Glass-Steagall would lead to more efficiency and lower costs, but neither of these promises has come true. No less an expert than John Reed, former CEO of Citigroup, now says those claims were wrong. Reed wrote in a recent op-ed (behind a firewall) that “there are very few cost efficiencies that come from the merger of functions – indeed, there may be none at all.” 
 
 In fact, says Reed, it is possible that this combination of functions actually makes banking services more expensive. 
 
 4. The repeal of Glass-Steagall is further corrupting the culture of banking – if such a thing is possible. 
 
 Sanders was right when he said on Saturday night that “the business model of Wall Street is fraud.” The traditional practice of what Sen. Elizabeth Warren calls “boring” banking – opening savings accounts, reviewing loans, and providing other customer services – has largely been supplanted by high-risk gambling and the aggressive hustling of dubious investments to unwary clients. 
 
 The level of fraud unearthed since the 2008 crisis is nothing short of breathtaking. (The fact that no senior banking executive has gone to prison for that fraud is, if anything, even more breathtaking.) How did that happen? 
 
 Citigroup’s Reed wrote that the repeal of Glass-Steagall led to the “very serious” problem of “mixing incompatible cultures” – which, he said, “makes the entire banking industry more fragile.” He discussed the relationship-based, sociable culture of traditional banking, emphasizing its incompatibility with the risk-seeking, “short termist” mentality of investment bankers who seek “immediate rewards.” 
 
 Reed makes a very important point – although he’s being overly kind about it. Yes, traditional bankers tend to be risk-averse and customer-focused. That’s very different from the high-stakes gambling mentality of investment banking. 
 
 But what Reed fails to note – or is too polite to mention – is the extent to which today’s culture of investment banking is predicated on outright fraud. That’s reflected in polling of the banking community itself, as well as in the industry’s appalling record of documented illegality. It is this mentality, which is present in banks from the “C” suite on down, which has given rise to Wall Street’s tsunami of misdeeds. 
 
 This greed-driven fraud mentality is like a virus, consuming too-big-to-fail banks even as they exert ever-greater control over our economy – and our political system. 
 
 5. Too-big-to-fail banks are a threat to our democracy. 
 
 These megabanks aren’t just a “systemic threat” to our economy. Through their enormous wealth, and because of the ruthlessness with which they’re willing to wield their influence, they are also a systemic threat to democracy itself. 
 
 That threat can be seen in the workings of last year’s Congress, which saw the successful insertion of a lobbyist-drafted “Citigroup amendment” into a last-minute budget bill. 
 
 It can be seen in a political climate where the Republican head of a Congressional Committee can say that “Washington and the regulators are here to serve the banks.” 
 
 It can be seen in Wall Street political contributions which flow to powerful and familiar names, Republican or Democratic. 
 
 Banks have acquired too much power. They must be broken up vertically (by line of business) and horizontally (by size), even as their corrupting influence over our government is ended through a system of fundamental election reform. 
 
 In today’s environment, reinstating Glass-Steagall is not just the right policy – although it is certainly that. It’s also an excellent litmus test for politicians who say they’re willing to take on Wall Street. ||||| It’s time to celebrate a candidate who deserves the spotlight, more so than other candidates from either side of the left-right false divide. 
 
 Here are 10 reasons why Bernie Sanders deserves more coverage from the mainstream media and, ultimately, your vote: 
 
 1) He supports a new Glass Steagall act- hell he even detailed 5 reasons explaining why it’s important; passed over 80 years ago, it had prevented commercial banks from participating in investment banking. It was repealed in 1999, and banks used this new-found ability to plunder the savings of their depositors by making extremely risky “investments” for their own profit. This is the primary reason for the 2008 financial crisis, and the reason why the big banks had to be bailed out by taxpayers. Hillary Clinton doesn’t want to reinstate Glass-Steagall while Trump wants regulations on Wall Street to be weakened. 
 
 2) He wants to break up the big banks; no more of this “too big to fail” nonsense- he also voted against the bailout of Wall Street. Hillary, on the other hand, receives money and support from Wall Street. She has also voted multiple times for the bailout despite “evolving” on the issue. Trump wants to maintain the size of the big banks. He also wanted to bail out the banks. 
 
 3) Sanders opposed NAFTA and the TPP: two “trade” agreements, the first causing the loss of up to a million jobs in America and the second a formerly-top-secret agreement which would hand sweeping powers to corporations. Hillary was for the TPP and supported it a dozen times- only recently has she “evolved” on the matter. Trump hates the TPP too… but only because he thinks China would somehow benefit from it. 
 
 4) For his entire political career Sanders has stood against the for-profit prison industrial complex and the practice of over-criminalization. This issue has had Clinton “evolving” towards prison reform since… a few months back… but before entering her higher form, she lobbied in 1994 for a crime law that had increased prison funding and sentences. Trump wants to “get a lot tougher” on crime, despite police killings being the highest in two decades and despite the fact that violent crime is also down. 
 
 5) Sanders voted against the Iraq War, and is against a war with Russia. Clinton voted for the Iraq War- she also has a neoconservative war-mongering foreign policy. Most Republican candidates, besides Rand Paul, do not seem averse to war. Trump’s claim that he opposed Iraq’s invasion at the time it was debated is baseless, though he too is against conflict with Russia; China’s his whipping boy. 
 
 6) Sanders voted twice against the Patriot Act, which allowed widespread mass surveillance to be used against the American public. Hillary voted for it twice and Trump is all for reauthorizing it. 
 
 7) Sanders doesn’t degrade racial and religious minorities, nor does he inflame the majority- he comes right out and tells us that the elite are to blame. He said this at a rally: “they’re always playing one group against another. Rich got richer — everybody else was fighting each other. Our job is to build a nation in which we all stand together”. Hillary has an “abysmal” racial justice record and Trump… well, he’s said enough about that topic to fill a phone book. 
 
 8) Sanders wants to decriminalize the use of marijuana. Clinton is against decriminalizing it and Trump seems to favor legalizing it for medical uses. 
 
 9) Bernie refuses to take money from the super rich… or the corporations. Hillary receives money from everyone who has it- bankers, corporations… she doesn’t discriminate. Trump is already one of the super rich and admitted that he has manipulated the system for his own benefit. 
 
 10) The corporate mainstream media hates Bernie and censors him, attempting to make it look like he endorses Hillary. Trump gets WAY more mainstream coverage than Bernie despite both polling similarly. If you want to choose someone who wasn’t handpicked for you, then Bernie is your best best. 
 
 Bonus!) Whenever someone tries to come up with a top ten list NOT to vote for Bernie… it comes out convincing MORE people to vote for him- just read those top comments. On the other hand, one of the most popular search result for the top ten reasons TO vote for Trump is satirical. 
 
 Update: While it’s awesome, and an honor, that so many seem to agree with these reasons, the opinions are strictly mine own. Obviously, plenty of Anons do agree, but it would be a bit presumptuous to say that all of Anonymous backs Bernie Sanders as some might suggest. 
 
 Sources: Common Dreams, Huffington Post, Infowars, Huffington Post, Bustle, On The Issues, CNBC, Huffpost, Daily Caller, OpenSeccrets, examiner, The Week 
 
 This Article (Ten Reasons That Will Convince You That Bernie Sanders Deserves Your Vote) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author(CoNN) and AnonHQ.com.
– Well, we knew Anonymous wasn't going to come out in favor of Donald Trump. The hacktivist group's pick for president is Bernie Sanders, according to a Wednesday post, which describes 10 reasons why Sanders should get your vote. Firstly, the group says Sanders wants to break up big banks and instate a new Glass-Steagall act, enacted in 1933 and repealed in 1999, which would block commercial banks from doing any investment banking. Hillary Clinton won't reinstate Glass-Steagall; Trump wants Wall Street regulations loosened, Anonymous says. The group also likes that Sanders opposes the Trans Pacific Partnership, which it claims "would hand sweeping powers to corporations." He's also against a war with Russia and the for-profit prison system, refuses to take money from the rich, voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, and supports decriminalizing marijuana, the group claims. "The corporate mainstream media hates Bernie and censors him, attempting to make it look like he endorses Hillary. Trump gets WAY more mainstream coverage than Bernie despite both polling similarly," Anonymous adds. "If you want to choose someone who wasn't handpicked for you, then Bernie is your best best." In other Anonymous news, the group announced it was at the controls of a recent cyber attack against Turkey, alleging its government backs the Islamic State. Per local media, 400,000 domains were forced offline between Dec. 14 and 21, reports RT.