Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

I would interject that it is not our motives that frighten the certain factions, it is our success, and HOW we do it. This VA document is full of fail and poor intelligence, not unusual for gov. output.

HOWEVER, I might add that I had cause to visit a lawyer in person this past year. Said lawyer does what one may call double duty. When we were discussing Anonymous in context of my visit to him he revealed to me that in the context of his second duty (much much higher than the stupid VA rube who wrote that doc, and higher than the DOJ) he is very aware of the actions of Anonymous and that what the PTB are most interested in HOW we do what we do, the effectiveness of it..that they are studying the stand alone complex, or lone wolf...how things are organized, information gathered and disseminated. I was told that HIS PTB are well aware of the crimes of the CO$ and that Chanology is not in any way associated with crimes by his PTB...what they want to understand is HOW this is working. They can see that it is, but as with so many others, they do not understand HOW. As most chanology anons must know, our particular actions are harnessing information access and dissemination on a level never before seen. I believe that the concern lies in groups who may play copy cat in some form, groups who are actually organized with actual leadership...

Clearly the VA doc if full of fail and stupid. There are factions in gov. admire our actions and how we accomplish it.

At least that was my understanding in my somewhat lengthy conversation with this particular lawyer.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

well yeah that and the fact we dont commit any acts of terrorism.

Just thought I'd mention that...

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

If our intelligence agency admirers would like to make a donation, I'm running low on Daphne cartridges and my Sceptre could use a downgrade to last year's Turret status. I know, I know, but I liked the stick controller much better.

Thanks.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

I tried to read the document and was told the document was corrupt and could not be fixed?

EDIT: Ignore, I fixed it.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Most people seem to fail to "get" the concept of Anonymous fully. I think the main part this report failed to address is the fact that there are many factions and splinter groups that go by the same name "Anonymous". There are those who go out and catch pedophiles, and I'm sure there are pedophiles amongst us as well. There have been groups of both good and evil. The report states that anon did an epileptic raid on websites. It is entirely possible, but I don't know the details because it was likely another faction that I have not associated with. Not Chanology. I can see "good" people doing this as a prank and possibly having it go to far too. Another important note is that those who are forming Anonymous in Chanology are not the same people which were just kids who wanted to do illegal and stupid stuff more-or-less in the name of defiance, instead of a moral-related cause. I saw this progress and decided not to take part until I saw that everything changed for the better. Calling Anonymous "cyber terrorists" is like calling all biker's a part of a violent gang. Virginia needs to understand this to be more effective in finding real criminals instead of turning up many false positives and creating paranoia as a cause for misunderstanding who and what we are up against. This type misunderstanding is much broader than the half page skimming anonymous.

This goes for almost everything in that article. Not all muslims are terrorists, infact most are peaceful. What if a bunch of self-proclaimed Christians decided to go fly planes into a big building? Would we call all Christians terrorists? I certainly hope not. A terrorist's goal is to have us act out of fear and misunderstanding and become creators of our own chaos. A terrorist is much like a troll who has no conscience and doesn't value human life. The fear that causes us to be stripped of rights and freedoms as an attempt to protect us, but do nothing to stop the actual terrorists from acting. That is exactly what has been happening, and although, we are getting better at recognizing this, I'm afraid we have a long ways to go.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

then by all means send this copypasta to the virginia state police

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

BBJ,

The PTB (powers that be?) are interested in HOW Anons accomplish what they get done because they're afraid terrorists will use the same practices to their success.

What they don't get is that it is the moral issue plus Co$'s crimes that are driving it. It is rewarding to find Co$ crimes and publish them, and one hopes that these publishings will be seen by PTB and acted upon. Until the PTB act on these things, it's fun to gossip about the latest juicy discovery about Co$.

Imagine... if some hate group wanted to use the same methods. They wouldn't be able to gossip about real life crimes and foibles of a cult, they would have to MANUFACTURE their gossip - such a different concept and not really likely to engage another person's interest and get them to act. See the difference?

There's a big difference between, say, Westboro Baptist Church's "gossip" about the neighborhood gays and hearing about enforced abortions in Scientology's Sea Org. The first is boring (in this day and age) and the second is scandalous and shocking, and something must be done about it!

What I'm getting at here is that the subject of Scientology's crimes and abuses is more likely to pull in people to join the movement than a hate group would be able to use the Internet to get support and members. So I don't see the Internet being used to the same level of success (for a hate group) like it has been successful for a citizen or public or community watchdog group - which is what Anonymous and the anti-scientology movement really is.

A public forum like the Internet is a valid and successful venue for the travelling of messages for any community watchdog or activist group. I doubt seriously that it would work for a terrorist group. It is the Co$ that has labelled Anonymous as a hate group and they're trying to spread that message far and wide, but that label is incorrect.

It would probably be a good idea to start working on the image of Anonymous and the anti-Co$ movement as a community activist group.

The PTB will always be looking for ways that terrorists are able to operate, and as long as Anonymous is thought of (or called sometimes) as terrorists, then they will be looking at Anons' methods.

Until the PTB sit down for a minute and differentiate between the motives of the Anon-v-Co$ movement and the motives of some terrorist group, they'll never understand the "HOW" Anon works so well.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Oh my sweet fuck.

tl;dr

At what point during your typing marathon did you stop thinking 'some poor cunt has got to read this'.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

To put it concisely, what they're getting at is that Anonymous is a success /precisely/ because it's the synthesis of lulzfaggotry and moralfaggotry..

That is to say, while Anonymous can shift and adjust to defeat any opponent in any arena, it cannot randomly select opponents. Suppose I decided to make a vid of a robotic voice threatening to dissect a puppy alive and watch it's heart slowly stop beating 'for the lulz.' Do you think I'd be able to raise an army?

Now suppose someone did it threatening to dismantle the church of scientology.

Now suppose someone did it threatening to dismantle the republican party. Or the democratic party. Or the US Military.

It's not that anonymous couldn't defeat any of those other opponents. If we had the number of people with the same diverse talents and drive as we have in the war on Scientology, we could seriously hurt any of those opponents. But there's simply no way to assemble a large group of people with diverse talents and intense drive with the purpose of dissecting a puppy or taking out a political party or military. And even if you could get enough people assembled to take out the Democratic party, they couldn't do it using our methods, because there would be just as much opposition.

See, we are open-source and transparent. Why? Because it's essential to the way we operate. But if there was organized opposition that could actually reason and articulate arguments, they could easily interfere with this approach. The reason Scientology is such an easy target is because they are incapable of this. They can't 'blend in' here - and if they could, they'd only be helping us win.

Imagine an internet war between democrats and republicans. Could either side utilize an open-source, transparent, leaderless strategy? No. They'd fall apart. The situation just happens to be right where the strategy will work /in the case of anonymous vs. scientology/.

But the strange thing is, the cases in which our strategy will be most successful just so happens to be against the most egregiously evil and secretive societies. If you think about hypothetical situations where an Anon-style opposition can destroy an organization, every one of those organizations will be totalitarian, will lack transparency, will have a rigid hierarchy that demands strict obedience of all subordinates, will have a HUGE ego, will emphasize 'not hurting feelings' over 'reasoning well', and so on. Anonymous is the antithesis of those traits.

If the powers that be are worried about Anonymous, they should rethink the way they run their organization. If you emphasize transparency, efficiency, effectiveness, work to help people and let go of your goddamned ego, Anonymous is no threat to you at all.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Your brother is just one carrot stick away from being a suicide bomber.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Or at least a maniac armed with salad spinners.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Boris, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the significance or otherwise of the report.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

They should really be interested in the uncanny power of MarbleCake. Clearly they are the unseen power that moves the internet.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Thing is, it could very easily be people involved in Chanology. It could have been me or Consensus or whoever, or none of us. We don't know. Because we don't actually really know each other. So, while I understand you saying it was likely "another faction", truth is each of us is our own faction and we don't know with any certainty what any other anon is or isn't doing. All any of us can be sure of is what s/he her/himself has or hasn't done.

The absence of leadership structures is a key differentiating factor between Anonymous and other movements. Most movements tend to become organisations and to calcify in the process.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Exactly, the PTB are fully aware that ANON/Chanology is no threat, and they absolutely do NOT understand HOW it's working, that is why they are studying it. I believe there is understanding of the components that are being used by this movement, what they don't understand is how all the components are working together, and I mean ALL the components, technology, stand alone...ect. I did not get the feeling specifically that there was concern that terrorists would somehow be able to figure it out and harness this...that goes against the concept of stand alone ect.

What I believe is the main fear is this; one of the main reasons that ANON/Chanology works is via DIVERSITY. We are a widely diverse and accepting group united against a common cause. Terrorists for instance are not such a group. Neither are most other groups (such as white supremacists) that may threaten security in the U.S. and abroad. I personally believe the motive to study how ANON/Chanology is working is motivated on the distinct fear that should the U.S. ever face a (for instance) martial law situation, the very diversity of the American people combined with the stand alone + common cause + technology...could very well cause trouble for the imposers of martial law..ect.

The above is my opinion only..and based on the knowledge that there can be no other logical reason for studying us because what we DO cannot be used by groups that truly do pose serious security issues based on the very nature of their composition. They KNOW we are not a threat to national security...and they are not unhappy that we are taking down the cult.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

respectfully snipped...

what I got was it is exactly the ABSENCE of leadership that is most perplexing them...no leadership and things still get done effectively? There is a collective WTF? happening in organizations that depend on leadership...they just cannot grasp how things get done without ORDERS from HEADQUARTERS....hehe I have a feeling they will be studying this for quite some time...and remember, people fear that which they cannot understand.

Also leadership exists in ALL groups that are true threats to national security. I imagine there is some element of fear...like OMG these people have no leadership and look what they can accomplish..."When in trouble when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout"...that is exactly what they are doing in some respects.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Change that to "How members of Anonymous have been targets of hate incidents by a group
known as the "Church" of Scientology" and they'd be more correct...

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

I always wanted to be a terrorist.
Thanks, Anonymous.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

You know, so much of this confusion could be cleared up if people just started calling this strictly Chanology, and not Anonymous. Don't worry though, I'm not trying to start that shit again. Like the epilepsy raid. It's well known who did that. It was Anon and it was orchestrated by one of the major chans. But it was done to try and undermine Chanology. Two separate groups.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

I concur. While I've always been an Anon, I'm also involved in Chanology.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Your vision of Anonymous is new and narrow. What you 'think' and what you 'know' are to simplistic.

Anonymous has often been called "terrorist", seen as a "threat" and for good reason.



Anonymous has more history than the just the chans. It continues because you cannot confine it, it simply evolves as is its nature.

It is valued and protected because of its power, Anonymous is who created The United States.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

"Anonymous is a threat because it is a) well organized b) fluid and responsive to changes c) capable of independent operation" anonsoldier

Anonymous is not organized. If it were I'd be able to accomplish more with support from a group.. which we are not.

Why do I feel anonsoldier, despite his stated purposes, is coming across like a scilon posting as an anon explaining anonymous in this thread?

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

OSA claims = the new Godwin.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

The report mentioned us as unprecedented and successful, which is flattering, but this accusation of an anthrax threat is pure bullshit, and cannot be tolerated. If you check the sources at the end of the document, this is mentioned for the "white powder" threats:

182 (FOUO) IIR 4 201 3762 08 IIR: Early 2008 Threats To The Church Of Scientology

What does that mean?

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

FOUO = For Official Use Only which is defined here: SO WHAT EXACTLY DOES “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” MEAN

The FOUO classification originated from the U.S. Department of Defense. I wonder if the Virginia State Police are employing the designation as a foolish attempt to evade public accountability and resultant lawsuits.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Anonymous here, I'm suing for slander.

brb

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

For what it is worth, during a Toronto protest, a creepy scientologist came up to one of the protesters and asked why not bomb the place. The scientologist was fishing for a positive response. I believe it was caught on either video or audio because the scientologist was not paying attention. Bottom line is that they are trying to drum up the idea that we would be inclined towards violent activity. I don't necessarily suspect anonsoldier is of the ilk. But with the Scientologists bringing it up all the time it has to be discussed.

All I have to say is Damn Scientology, your creepy.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

I have never seen a statute criminalizing possession of FOUO materials. An authorized person who passed such materials to an unauthorized person could be civilly prosecuted. Once FOUO materials are widely disseminated, the designation becomes irrelevant.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/38-thunderdome/co-use-proxy-43377/

Creepy indeed.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

So VSP...

WE HERD U MAY BE WARY OF MUDKIPZ!!!



4 moar...

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/121-raids/i-nquisition-gentlemen-richmond-callout-43405/#post827479

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

I didn't know that's why they did it.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Too much time spent at ocmb?

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Herro fails again. We all know it was Ebaums.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

That's damn funny. Maybe they'll include it in their next threat assessment.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Ha! I think that one is on the standardly checklist that the Toronto Org has been using for years.

Sometimes they pretend to be an "interested passerby" if they can.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

My bad. How silly of me.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Yes, Scientologists as well as children who might be children of Scientologists or just stupid brats come and suggest violence at most of the protests I've been to. We always turn them down.

And that picture is gold.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

OMG, LOOK AT THESE TERRORISTS WITH THEIR TERRIFYING FACIAL HAIR! D:

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

LOL, mustaches.

Re: Anon mentioned in 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

Tinfoil, probably.

That anonsoldier's ideas about what anonymous is are different from yours, might be because he's an eliete OSA spai.

Or it could be that he's been somewhat away from IRL raiding for the last few months, and has had lots of time for introspection and may be prone to overanalysis.

Or it could be that he's perfectly fine, and you're an OSA spai.

or ?