Anonymous Sends a Letter to the World

[swolf]

I don't trust them. I'm sorry but that seemed...somewhat threatening. "at this time we are peaceful" "our targets" etc. They said things like that and it raises red flags with me. I understand that they say that they are trying to be a hero and all but...no. A lot of horrible things have been done "for the right reasons". The atom bomb. The people who attack abortion clinics. The religious zealots who commit acts of terrorism because they feel it's for the "greater good". I'm not saying that they're definitely bad but they make me suspicious of them. Also.it doesn't help that they are...well...anonymous. If you feel strong about something then protest and argue valid points. That works dont hide behind a computer and...do whatever is they are doing or plan to do.

I can understand where your coming from but you seam to misunderstand what anonymous is good at. Its not being dicks on the internet though some members are thought to be unrivalled champions. But its to spread information. Mainly inside of anonymous. For example if there is some new leaked us government documents the first people who will know about it is probably wikileaks then anonymous. (atleast right now)

Then they spread the information on and take copies of the document themselves. Basically making it impossible to censure.

They have also been supporting freespeech by donating and advocating several other free-speech organisations. And they make petitions and complaints if something goes wrong.

Well those "unrivaled champion" members...as they don't have any leadership setting boundaries or anything it may accidentally "condone" something they didn't intend. Like the people who attack abortion clinics. I doubt that the group's leaders intended for that to happen but those individuals got so wrapped up in that group mindset and thought they were doing "good for the cause".

 

[Ham_authority95]

Anon are cyber-terrorists with an inflated sense of their own importance and one hell of a Messiah complex.

I think you got it right, here.

But you have to admit, they're really entertaining when they get butthurt...

I'll grant that. In a sort of "ain't that cute, BUT IT'S WRONG!" kind of way.

(also, if I want my "messages" box to light up like a Christmas tree, all I have to do is drop a remark about 4chan or Anon and a bunch of butthurt whiners quote me. You people are too easy to rile up. There's no sport in it. It's like watching the '96 Bulls play a Division III women's college basketball team.)

They've proven you right that they have too much self-importance. XD

 

[SinisterGehe]

Hey, I know... Instead of PoDing websites, doing threats, pointing fingers and generally being Internet terrorist who everyone should be afraid. He/She/Them/It/You could start preserving and sharing information, like Wikipedia or indeed Wikileaks does.

"If indeed pen is mightier than the sword, then the courier is the greatest hero of all time..." -H.T.Hänninen
"You can fire your cannons as much as you want but without shells they are worthless"
(For those who don't get my point...) Stop doing those Damn attacks and threats and start preserving and sharing the knowledge, make yourself useful instead of standing behind the fence and barking the incoming traffic. All information is equal in worth but some of them contain greater meaning (Worth =/= Meaning), so if you go and prevent a web-page from working, you are "killing your own soldier" (He speaks about freedom of speech yet he goes and prevents people from filling their right to that freedom).
I agree that there should be no set fences on information shared amongst people, if it is common knowledge that benefits everyone and/or touches everyones lives, everyone should be able to access it.
But what should be set is the quality of information, you have no right to share information about my life (Or indeed anyones life) if it does not benefit for the common good. Freedom of speech, does not equal freedom to destroy someones life, no matter what their status is. Would you be ready to show who you really are, if it indeed would benefit the common good? It would destroy your existence and meaning of your idea (which you are entitled to have), for the common good.
By this we get in to a paradox: "Am I in position to expose a whereabouts of some terrorist? By this I would be destroying hes life, but giving a great benefit to the world" Should I follow the ideas of Kant here? Or the ideas of utilitarianism? Of some other so philosophy?

Freedom of speech is utopia, but not everything is meant to be said aloud. Everyone got different idea of what should be allowed to be said and what not, if we do a global agreement amongst every thinking creature on this earth, someone must always give something of hes or hers as a sacrifice.

I say it again:
"If indeed pen is mightier than the sword, then the courier is the greatest hero of all time..." -H.T.Hänninen
Less talk, less bullshit and ***** slapping, take that hammer and chisel and build the bridge across the river of broken promises.

You can not tell anonymous what to do. Your voice is not strong enough to reach all the millions of people involved and nor do they indeed share ideas. Also its useless to try hold one anonymous accountable for another anonymous crimes since they do not necessarily promote eachoters ways of approach or is even aware of eachoter.

Im sure you do not know of a countrymen of yours who might be in the act of raping right now nor do you promote such acts so is it fair to say your country is bad and full or rapists?

Did you skip my whole point just to tell me that I am a single weak man, who's life is not worth of anything significant? Thank you, I am well aware of that, but are you?
What is the point of fighting for freedom of speech with just yelling or doing acts that are criminal? (I am am pointing to the PoD attacks made against those people who been talking about ideas that are against anons ideals) Why don't they just take their disguises off and work to share and save ideas from being destroyed. When they go and PoD Banks website to make a point, they aren't doing it, they are causing hate from others who's life they make harder. Simple human mind can not realise the big picture, unless they focus on it. When they go about their lives and someone comes and pokes a stick in to their wheel of life, they get annoyed, they become angry and they will seek someone to get revenge on.

If they really want to make a point, they would get their asses get united under one cause and one mean, inform people of what going on in mannered way (Example, this letter) and be more public about their ideas and what issue bothers this world, not to cause the issues...

 

[Zaik]

I've always had a pleasant opinion of Anonymous. I'm big on freedom of speech, and the concept of the internet having guardians has always given me a bonerd. However the mask they wear makes them a joke. Guy Fawkes wanted to bring down the Protestant revolution to restore Catholic Domination. He's worse than the people Anonymous (and Anarchists) think he's fighting against. Therefore, just like people who wear the inverted cross as a sign to disrespect God, wearing a Guy Fawkes mask because you are for revolution only makes you an uneducated fool. http://www.cracked.com/article_18606_8-historic-symbols-that-mean-opposite-what-you-think.html

The mask is a reference to Epic Fail Guy, which is a meme. Yes, it is a Guy Fawkes mask, however they don't wear it just because it's a Guy Fawkes mask. At least that's not the original motivation to wear it, anyway.

Also that video doesn't really give enough credit to the fact that Anon does everything it does for it's own amusement primarily and any good that comes out of anything they do beyond that is just positive collateral damage.


Edit: Also, to be on topic, as usual I agree with them 100%.

The delta between the intention behind the usage a symbol and how the symbol is perceived by the audience can be vast. In the end if the symbol does not tell the audience what you intend for it to say, the failure is on the one displaying the symbol, not on the audience.

As such, when I see people wearing a Guy Fawkes mask as part of a revolutionary act, I generally assume the following:
They have little understanding of history.
They have little understanding of revolution.
That they, ultimately, are little more than people who want to appear revolutionary without bothering with a serious revolution.

It takes more than a few denial of service attacks to change the world. Especially when the organization as a whole is so devoid of structure or idea that it would be impossible to form a consensus on what precisely they want to change.

Like i said before, they don't care that a few history buffs think they wear their masks because they are retarded, if you get flustered over it then u mad bro. Anything they do is for their own amusement first and any other fallout from a situation is just collateral damage, good or bad.

Yeah, i'll be the first to admit they tend to talk a big game then get bored too quick to be taking on any real IRL organization, however they do have one particularly good one under their belt. http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Chanology

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I've always had a pleasant opinion of Anonymous. I'm big on freedom of speech, and the concept of the internet having guardians has always given me a bonerd. However the mask they wear makes them a joke. Guy Fawkes wanted to bring down the Protestant revolution to restore Catholic Domination. He's worse than the people Anonymous (and Anarchists) think he's fighting against. Therefore, just like people who wear the inverted cross as a sign to disrespect God, wearing a Guy Fawkes mask because you are for revolution only makes you an uneducated fool. http://www.cracked.com/article_18606_8-historic-symbols-that-mean-opposite-what-you-think.html

The mask is a reference to Epic Fail Guy, which is a meme. Yes, it is a Guy Fawkes mask, however they don't wear it just because it's a Guy Fawkes mask. At least that's not the original motivation to wear it, anyway.

Also that video doesn't really give enough credit to the fact that Anon does everything it does for it's own amusement primarily and any good that comes out of anything they do beyond that is just positive collateral damage.


Edit: Also, to be on topic, as usual I agree with them 100%.

The delta between the intention behind the usage a symbol and how the symbol is perceived by the audience can be vast. In the end if the symbol does not tell the audience what you intend for it to say, the failure is on the one displaying the symbol, not on the audience.

As such, when I see people wearing a Guy Fawkes mask as part of a revolutionary act, I generally assume the following:
They have little understanding of history.
They have little understanding of revolution.
That they, ultimately, are little more than people who want to appear revolutionary without bothering with a serious revolution.

It takes more than a few denial of service attacks to change the world. Especially when the organization as a whole is so devoid of structure or idea that it would be impossible to form a consensus on what precisely they want to change.

Like i said before, they don't care that a few history buffs think they wear their masks because they are retarded, if you get flustered over it then u mad bro. Anything they do is for their own amusement first and any other fallout from a situation is just collateral damage, good or bad.

Yeah, i'll be the first to admit they tend to talk a big game then get bored too quick to be taking on any real IRL organization, however they do have one particularly good one under their belt. http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Chanology

I'm not flustered in the slightest. That they don't care about their message is telling precisely because they have no distinct or coherent message. This single fact more than any other is what makes them an irrelevant force in the world.

 

[fgdfgdgd]

I've always had a pleasant opinion of Anonymous. I'm big on freedom of speech, and the concept of the internet having guardians has always given me a bonerd. However the mask they wear makes them a joke. Guy Fawkes wanted to bring down the Protestant revolution to restore Catholic Domination. He's worse than the people Anonymous (and Anarchists) think he's fighting against. Therefore, just like people who wear the inverted cross as a sign to disrespect God, wearing a Guy Fawkes mask because you are for revolution only makes you an uneducated fool. http://www.cracked.com/article_18606_8-historic-symbols-that-mean-opposite-what-you-think.html

Pretty sure that they know and don't care.

Symbols change with time, anon has made this their own symbol, The bastardisation of a Guy Fawks mask (Because the original Guy Fawks masks looked nothing like that one, it is in fact, a romanticisation of one, not resembling the man at all) This is the Anon mast, a mask of revolution, a mask of the masses, all for one and all for none. As is the changing tones and cases of anon, they, like the law, are living and ever evolving, the fact that this one case has untied oldfag, newfag, causefag and lazefag alike is unprecedented. (Note to all that is their terminology for an old member, a new member, a member that gets involved in things like copyright law etc and the last one just being the average poster that doesn't care about the rest.) Anon has their flag, it is not one person, no leader, no member list, it is everyone and no one, a true device of the people, and as such, it also had the darker side of human nature, the side that is hard to confront, that in us all is the ability to just not care, to be evil and to hate. I implore you, don't look at anon as some kind of superficial cyber terrorists, they may not be winning big battles for human rights or pushing political issues into public view every day, the thing that counts is, they try when it happens, not for lime light, if simply making political stands while remaining anonymous is what gets lime light, well, that says more about us then it does them.

I respect Anon for what they're doing here, they're taking action, not just for themselves or for Julian Assange, but for all those that do not have a voice in the matter, anon have no political alliances, no patronage of any country, it has no profits (other than lulz) it is simply, the honest side of humanity, that has no internal corruption of spirit,
Anon is simple humanity at both it's best, and worst, people have a hard time coming to grips with this, but if you've ever looked another human being in the eye and had an utter contempt for their existence, saw an injustice that you thought shouldn't go unanswered, watched a flawed system leave someone dying in the gutter, then you, yes, you , could be an Anon, if you have hate, and can use it to drive yourself, then you are little different from them, you just deny you hate, you take it out on a colleague, a friend, your family, your spouse, yourself, but you've never had the drive to use it for good, and that's what separates you from Anon, they use hate, channel it, focus it, and things get done, whereas you, you just get angrier.

 

[Dasmaster]

Anon is nothing more then overgrown children and actual children with more self-importance than Al Gore.


Most of the time they're just annoying but sometimes on those very special occasions they do something good, then immediately screw that up all the while taking no responsibility.

You obviously do not know what anonymous is. Its impossible for them to take responsibility for anything by the very nature of how they do things and how anonymous is!

 

[Dasmaster]

I don't trust them. I'm sorry but that seemed...somewhat threatening. "at this time we are peaceful" "our targets" etc. They said things like that and it raises red flags with me. I understand that they say that they are trying to be a hero and all but...no. A lot of horrible things have been done "for the right reasons". The atom bomb. The people who attack abortion clinics. The religious zealots who commit acts of terrorism because they feel it's for the "greater good". I'm not saying that they're definitely bad but they make me suspicious of them. Also.it doesn't help that they are...well...anonymous. If you feel strong about something then protest and argue valid points. That works dont hide behind a computer and...do whatever is they are doing or plan to do.

I can understand where your coming from but you seam to misunderstand what anonymous is good at. Its not being dicks on the internet though some members are thought to be unrivalled champions. But its to spread information. Mainly inside of anonymous. For example if there is some new leaked us government documents the first people who will know about it is probably wikileaks then anonymous. (atleast right now)

Then they spread the information on and take copies of the document themselves. Basically making it impossible to censure.

They have also been supporting freespeech by donating and advocating several other free-speech organisations. And they make petitions and complaints if something goes wrong.

Well those "unrivaled champion" members...as they don't have any leadership setting boundaries or anything it may accidentally "condone" something they didn't intend. Like the people who attack abortion clinics. I doubt that the group's leaders intended for that to happen but those individuals got so wrapped up in that group mindset and thought they were doing "good for the cause".

To be honest that would still not hurt anonymous because no matter how much you try you cant connect a bombing with a member from anonymous. Nor can you connect 2 events thats thought to be from anonymous.

Because YOU WILL NEVER KNOW WHO DID IT, WHY and HOW. It might as-well be George bush trying to avenge his ant colony by planting baking soda bombs for all you know.

 

[Dasmaster]

Anon are cyber-terrorists with an inflated sense of their own importance and one hell of a Messiah complex.

I think you got it right, here.

But you have to admit, they're really entertaining when they get butthurt...

I'll grant that. In a sort of "ain't that cute, BUT IT'S WRONG!" kind of way.

(also, if I want my "messages" box to light up like a Christmas tree, all I have to do is drop a remark about 4chan or Anon and a bunch of butthurt whiners quote me. You people are too easy to rile up. There's no sport in it. It's like watching the '96 Bulls play a Division III women's college basketball team.)

They've proven you right that they have too much self-importance. XD

How can you say someone who does not even give you there identity is to "self-important"?

Im trying to get my head around this but it just fails on so many levels.

 

[Dasmaster]

The fact that there is a 180 omment voard disscussing annon means they are getting more credit then they deserve I mean come on gus its annon adults are not suppost to take then seriously that would be like taking NAMBLA seriously if they said they would support free speech.

... The active part of Anon is adult mind you. Perhaps they are trying to tell you something?

since when......... the anon I know are a bunch of angry 14 year olds whom harass people for the lulz I equate them to people who feel up girls on subway trains. sick perverse and immature but ultimately failures and loser whom are most often not worth the trouble. If this has changed I am interested.

Ok so your limited view of such a large group of individuals cant possibly be wrong right? I mean my limited views of Christians involves them holding up signs and being from the Westboro Baptist church.

Not only this fatal flaw but ALSO the fact that anonymous can not be help accountable for what its members does. In fact its members can not be held accountable for what its members does.

 

[Dasmaster]

The fact that there is a 180 omment voard disscussing annon means they are getting more credit then they deserve I mean come on gus its annon adults are not suppost to take then seriously that would be like taking NAMBLA seriously if they said they would support free speech.

... The active part of Anon is adult mind you. Perhaps they are trying to tell you something?

since when......... the anon I know are a bunch of angry 14 year olds whom harass people for the lulz I equate them to people who feel up girls on subway trains. sick perverse and immature but ultimately failures and loser whom are most often not worth the trouble. If this has changed I am interested.

Ok so your limited view of such a large group of individuals cant possibly be wrong right? I mean my limited views of Christians involves them holding up signs and being from the Westboro Baptist church.

Not only this fatal flaw but ALSO the fact that anonymous can not be help accountable for what its members does. In fact its members can not be held accountable for what its members does.

Your taking this the wrong way, and my view of anon is not completely off as many many people can attest to, they are an organization with absolutely no accountability for anything they do witch now that I think about it is incredibly ironic considering that is exactly what Assangue is supposedly fighting against but I digress.

I sure that there are many anonss that do not do what I have stated above but enough of them do to make it their reputation until they fix that they really don't have the right to do anything or preach any values to anyone.

When you take in to considerations that what they have done in the past have absolutely NOTHING to do with there current efforts and they are most likely not the same individuals i think its silly of you to be so prodigious.

Also Anonymous is a completely transparent group. You can go into there forums and see exactly what they are doing so they do not go against what wikileaks are doing.

 

[Haydyn]

I've always had a pleasant opinion of Anonymous. I'm big on freedom of speech, and the concept of the internet having guardians has always given me a bonerd. However the mask they wear makes them a joke. Guy Fawkes wanted to bring down the Protestant revolution to restore Catholic Domination. He's worse than the people Anonymous (and Anarchists) think he's fighting against. Therefore, just like people who wear the inverted cross as a sign to disrespect God, wearing a Guy Fawkes mask because you are for revolution only makes you an uneducated fool. http://www.cracked.com/article_18606_8-historic-symbols-that-mean-opposite-what-you-think.html

This is sad. You clearly do not know how Annon works. Something such as symbolism or history of a mark has no meaning. Also there is no flag-bearer. There is no one who decide how they present themselves. No leader.

The mask was born as a meme. To protect there anonymity in a parade or something a mask was necessary. One person posted the idea. Others agreed and the idea grew. The majority decides the actions of anonymous since the more people that want something the more people will pitch in to help.

Annon are good people. I for one would not count on my neighbours to help me with my ideals.

You should reread what I typed. I have no problem with Anonymous wearing the masks as long as it's not misjudged as a sign of revolution. And when did I ever say there was a leader? Looking at your other posts you are probably just looking for trouble, which basically means I'm feeding a troll.

 

[Dasmaster]

I've always had a pleasant opinion of Anonymous. I'm big on freedom of speech, and the concept of the internet having guardians has always given me a bonerd. However the mask they wear makes them a joke. Guy Fawkes wanted to bring down the Protestant revolution to restore Catholic Domination. He's worse than the people Anonymous (and Anarchists) think he's fighting against. Therefore, just like people who wear the inverted cross as a sign to disrespect God, wearing a Guy Fawkes mask because you are for revolution only makes you an uneducated fool. http://www.cracked.com/article_18606_8-historic-symbols-that-mean-opposite-what-you-think.html

This is sad. You clearly do not know how Annon works. Something such as symbolism or history of a mark has no meaning. Also there is no flag-bearer. There is no one who decide how they present themselves. No leader.

The mask was born as a meme. To protect there anonymity in a parade or something a mask was necessary. One person posted the idea. Others agreed and the idea grew. The majority decides the actions of anonymous since the more people that want something the more people will pitch in to help.

Annon are good people. I for one would not count on my neighbours to help me with my ideals.

You should reread what I typed. I have no problem with Anonymous wearing the masks as long as it's not misjudged as a sign of revolution. And when did I ever say there was a leader? Looking at your other posts you are probably just looking for trouble, which basically means I'm feeding a troll.

I am sorry i misread or most likely got confused by some other posts. However the fact still remains that there is no "reason" behind them wearing the mask. Infact the mask itself is actually modified.

A symbol itself has no real power. You might look at Hitler's swastika and think it represents him and his evil. But in history and to this day in other places in the world it is looked upon as a symbol of luck.

In the end its all about what you see it as.

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

Anon are cyber-terrorists with an inflated sense of their own importance and one hell of a Messiah complex.

This. Their ideals are dubious at best (I agree that scientology needed to be shown that it's not the only organisation that can harass people who disagree with it, but campaigning in favour of piracy is retarded. If I write a book, record an album, etc and choose to share it with people for a fee, then you either don't read it/listen to it, or you pay up. My creation, my rights. Nobody has the right to take that away from me, and by doing so you hurt an individual who is just trying to make a living through a creative path) and their methods are just low grade terrorist BS. As for Wikileaks, yeah, some of that information should have been public, but some things are kept secret for a good reason (ie, just because it's kept private that one person secretly thinks another country's head of state is a dick doesn't mean it's worth risking world war 3 over). Short sighted and irresponsible, that's the fact of the matter. Freedom of speech is worth nothing if it gets us all killed.