Westboro Baptists Stage Fake Anonymous Threat

[DudeistBelieve]

God damn it Anon. You disappoint me. These people aren't about free speech, they're about abusing it.

*sigh* won't someone, anyone take them down?

 

[BlastedTheWorm]

How can Anonymous put out a press release?

 

[Void(null)]

Permalink

What's this, Anonymous? You're discovering you don't have control over who dons your mantle for whatever cause they see fit? Someone does something under the guise of Anonymous, and here's what happens--they suddenly act all "Wait, no we didn't."

Yes, you did. Even if it's just a handful of Anon fans playing pretend, you did it. Even in the extremely unlikely event that WBC had the presence of mind to somehow stage this themselves, which I highly doubt judging by their history, you did it.

You created a mask that shields you from the accountability you try to enforce on others, and now some of those sort of people are adopting the mask and using it to dodge accountability in the same way. You use guerrilla tactics to "enforce" free speech, and yet you act surprised when people discover they can use those same tactics to enforce whatever limits they want to put on the speech of others.

You created the mask. You set the terms of engagement. You did this, and everything that comes after it. Welcome to the fundamental flaw of vigilantism.

Had westboro donned the mantle of Anonymous and made attacks against the things that displeased them for Anon and not due to Religious or Political gains then that would be well within the spirit of Anon and there would be no problem.

Westboro however has staged a fake Anon attack against them for publicity and personal gain. That may very well incur the wrath of Anon, then again Anon is as brilliant as it is stupid, as wise as it is reactionary and Anon may simply choose not to allow themselves to be egged into a fight and drawing more publicity to Westboro than it already garnered, or it may decide to crush them beneath its booted heel. Who knows?

Anonymous has no leadership, no bias, no goal, no agenda. Anon does what it wishes to do because Anon is everyone and no one. Anonymous Fight for Equal rights and commit hate crimes. Anonymous are the extreme right, the extreme left and are everything and nothing in between. National heroes and Deserters, Cyber Security and Cyber Terrorists, they will prevent highschool shootings while encouraging someone else to kidnap and rape their neighbor. They are your best friend, your worst enemy, they are the Police and the Criminals they are everyone of every race, color, religious and creed and they are no one.

Anonymous is everyone.

 

[Dastardly]

They actually are an organization, though. People claiming to be part of Anonymous can be shut down because they aren't Anonymous, they're just anonymous.

...

While they are dangerous, their heart is in the right place.

1. You can't have it both ways. Either they're anonymous, or they're an organization. If you can't see a roster, they're anonymous. There's no way to prove who is/isn't 'one of them' without having a list of who they are.

2. Their hearts might be in the right place... for a certain group of "them." What about those claiming to be Anonymous now? Are their hearts in the right place? Apparently not, but are they any less dangerous? What if they're an offshoot of the same group of people that have decided to enforce a narrower view of "free speech" or "free information?"

The way the article makes it sound there was no hacking attempt or threat by anyone claiming to be anonymous. It all came from within the WBC itself to gain publicity.

But can it be proven? See, that's the problem. The burden of proof is not on WBC. They say a group of anonymous hackers, claiming to be Anonymous, sent them this letter. Well... how can you prove they didn't?

See, the whole purpose of Anonymous is that you can't prove who did something. They're hidden, unaccountable. So it's stupid to put the burden of proof on WBC in this particular case. You'd have to prove they did it themselves. And if they didn't, it doesn't matter who did it, they are part of Anonymous. Why? Because Anonymous doesn't screen its 'recruits,' so anyone that says they are is.

Unless WBC comes out and says, "Yep, we sent it to ourselves," we're seeing the problem of the self-appointed acti-vigilante, pushing others to be more accountable while dodging accountability themselves.

 

[Unesh52]

hahaha XD

Don't these Christians know that Lying is a sin?

Actually it's not, just giving false testimony (as in court testimony) against your neighbor is. Common misunderstanding, but the 10 commandments aren't quite as clear as you might think.

Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.

There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood...

There are others to the effect that He can't lie, that He hates liars, and that liars can't be around Him. I'm pretty sure lying is a sin dude.

Bible =/= 10 commandments. That's like saying rape is legal because the Bill of Rights doesn't really specify anything about it.

EDIT: OT: I never thought I could hate WBC more. Those dick heads.

 

[teh_Canape]

fuck this, I'm starting my own cult and I start recruiting right the fuck now

someone needs to stop these WBC crazy fucks

LORD INGLIP DEMANDS BLOOD

 

[Faladorian]

1. You can't have it both ways. Either they're anonymous, or they're an organization. If you can't see a roster, they're anonymous. There's no way to prove who is/isn't 'one of them' without having a list of who they are.

They are an organization called Anonymous. They're aware of who they are, but nobody else it. Kind of like Al'Qaeda; it has some top dogs and some peons, but most of them are not known, and they don't have a base of operations. The thing that makes a cell so dangerous or powerful is that it's hard to stop somebody working from an undisclosed location under an undisclosed name.

2. Their hearts might be in the right place... for a certain group of "them." What about those claiming to be Anonymous now? Are their hearts in the right place? Apparently not, but are they any less dangerous? What if they're an offshoot of the same group of people that have decided to enforce a narrower view of "free speech" or "free information?"

As I said before (that you couldn't possibly chronologically see, but still) they are an organization and people acting as Anonymous are simply posers. They want in on the whole conspiracy party, but they can't be. They're just independent hackers, who are anonymous but not Anonymous. Do you see the difference that the capitalized letter makes? One is an organization and the other is a simple adjective.

 

[Dastardly]

Westboro however has staged a fake Anon attack against them for publicity and personal gain.

I guess I'm just not seeing where you get this evidence that WBC staged this attack. It's entirely possible the attack was staged, but that doesn't mean it was self-staged. It could be some separate group of wannabes picking on WBC. It could very well be WBC themselves. It could be Anonymous.

What proof has been offered for any claim? How is WBC supposed to know the difference between "real" and "fake" Anonymous? How are we supposed to know? See, no one cares what happens to WBC, so we're glossing over the real issue here: Anonymous can't say, "Oh, that one wasn't us," whenever they don't like the ideology behind the action.

Anonymous has no leadership, no bias, no goal, no agenda. Anon does what it wishes to do because Anon is everyone and no one. Anonymous Fight for Equal rights and commit hate crimes. Anonymous are the extreme right, the extreme left and are everything and nothing in between. National heroes and Deserters, Cyber Security and Cyber Terrorists, they will prevent highschool shootings while encouraging someone else to kidnap and rape their neighbor. They are your best friend, your worst enemy, they are the Police and the Criminals they are everyone of every race, color, religious and creed and they are no one.

Anonymous is everyone.

Then why are they trying to say, "No, this wasn't us?" Fact is, it was them. Even if WBC did this to themselves, claiming to be Anonymous, they are Anonymous." Because all it takes to "be Anonymous" is saying you are. That's the worst thing about the mask. I could hack the "Feed the Children" website and say these idiots should stop having so many kids, and claim to be Anonymous. And guess what? I am.

There's no leadership, so there's no one to say what is or isn't sanctioned by the group. There is no bias, so there is no discernment or morality. So they can't suddenly decide to say, "No, we didn't do this one." Yeah, they did.

I know full well what Anon is supposed to be. I'm saying that in this case they're trying to eat their cake and also still have it. They want to claim to be this nebulous cloud that can't be tracked or traced or named or categorized... but then they want to claim to have a cause, and to somehow be able to decide what actions are within the scope of that cause.

Every tactic and weapon they use that shields them from accountability for their actions can be used by any group that wants to use them. That's a simple fact of the internet. But what Anon should be realizing is that everyone can also do things that are the opposite of what the "real" group wants, while claiming to be representing the real group.

 

[Dastardly]

1. You can't have it both ways. Either they're anonymous, or they're an organization. If you can't see a roster, they're anonymous. There's no way to prove who is/isn't 'one of them' without having a list of who they are.

They are an organization called Anonymous. They're aware of who they are, but nobody else it. Kind of like Al'Qaeda; it has some top dogs and some peons, but most of them are not known, and they don't have a base of operations. The thing that makes a cell so dangerous or powerful is that it's hard to stop somebody working from an undisclosed location under an undisclosed name.

2. Their hearts might be in the right place... for a certain group of "them." What about those claiming to be Anonymous now? Are their hearts in the right place? Apparently not, but are they any less dangerous? What if they're an offshoot of the same group of people that have decided to enforce a narrower view of "free speech" or "free information?"

As I said before (that you couldn't possibly chronologically see, but still) they are an organization and people acting as Anonymous are simply posers. They want in on the whole conspiracy party, but they can't be. They're just independent hackers, who are anonymous but not Anonymous. Do you see the difference that the capitalized letter makes? One is an organization and the other is a simple adjective.

Prove it.

Prove it's not them. We're supposed to do what--take their word for it? Why? They have built an entire identity upon not being trustworthy. "I know we don't let you all see who's in our group or anything, and we do illegal things a whole lot while trying not to get caught, but trust us when we say this one wasn't us?"

There are no names or faces to which the proper label is explicitly tied. If someone claims to be Anonymous, it's up to Anonymous to prove that this person is not. That would mean either outing that person or outing themselves... or both. And they won't.

Look at it this way--let's say a little group of Al'Qaeda broke off and decided to exclusively bomb orphanages. They used all the same tools and tactics, and spraypainted the names and symbols all over the site. Then we get an unsigned, untraceable letter "from Al'Qaeda" saying, "That totally wasn't us." Who do we believe?

 

[The_ModeRazor]

Ha!
We hungarians had a historian who was named Anonymus. Okay, we named him that way 'cause noone knew his name. Y'see, he was mysterious and shit.
And there's a huge statue of him in a park. Looks kinda like a combination between a dementor and Gandalf sans beard, just chillin' in an armchair.. Badass.

Where was I going with this?
Oh yeah. I keep hearing about this Anonymous stuff and I have no idea who they are. I could probably look it up on Google, but I might as well just ask the people here (if they would be so kind as to answer).

 

[Starke]

Like we needed any more evidence that these guys are scum.
I'm just disappointed Anonymous didn't actually do it.

Edit: Didn't they go after Gene Simmons just because he taunted them?

More because they didn't like what he had to say, but yup.

 

[Faladorian]

Prove it.

Prove it's not them.

I was responding to:

What about those claiming to be Anonymous now? Are their hearts in the right place? Apparently not, but are they any less dangerous?

so it's pretty much a given that they're not Anonymous if the hypothetical was "what about those claiming to be Anon." Also, by definition you can't prove that somebody is or isn't part of an anonymous organization, unless you are personally part of that organization. Somebody within Anonymous could tell if somebody was posing as Anon or not.

We're supposed to do what--take their word for it? Why? They have built an entire identity upon not being trustworthy. "I know we don't let you all see who's in our group or anything, and we do illegal things a whole lot while trying not to get caught, but trust us when we say this one wasn't us?"

Actually, they haven't. They make their motives very clear, and deliver on their word. They usually publish a .pdf or a webpage declaring their attack on a certain group or site, and they always deliver. Just because they remain anonymous doesn't mean they don't keep their word.

There are no names or faces to which the proper label is explicitly tied.

a·non·y·mous
   /əˈnɒnəməs/ Show Spelled[uh-non-uh-muhs] Show IPA
?adjective
1.
without any name acknowledged, as that of author, contributor, or the like: an anonymous letter to the editor; an anonymous donation.
2.
of unknown name; whose name is withheld: an anonymous author.
3.
lacking individuality, unique character, or distinction: an endless row of drab, anonymous houses.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anonymous

If someone claims to be Anonymous, it's up to Anonymous to prove that this person is not. That would mean either outing that person or outing themselves... or both. And they won't.

Yes, because a group of people claiming to be a part of their organization is far less threatening than revealing their identity to the world. It would be stupid of them to do so. It's like shooting a fly that lands on your arm. The fly is gone, but you just shot yourself in the arm.

Look at it this way--let's say a little group of Al'Qaeda broke off and decided to exclusively bomb orphanages. They used all the same tools and tactics, and spraypainted the names and symbols all over the site. Then we get an unsigned, untraceable letter "from Al'Qaeda" saying, "That totally wasn't us." Who do we believe?

Al'Qaeda, like Anonymous, is very proud of the work they do. They deal in anarchical attacks for the sake of disorder and power. So, if somebody did something radical and destructive in the name of a radical and destructive organization, and that organization claimed not to have a hand in it, I actually would be inclined to believe them. Anon takes credit and great pride in the attacks that they've orchestrated so far, so if somebody is branching off and doing something they don't like, of course they'll deny it.

Al'Qaeda takes great pride in the 9/11 incident. If they are willing to put that on their track record, but deny the bombing of an orphanage, then it was obviously something they don't believe in, not that it was too horrible for them and they had to step out of the spotlight.

 

[Unonon]

Oh, Fred.

You should have noticed the hive last week... or next.

Gaze in wonder as the Mitre of Phelps becomes heavier by the goatse fax.

This is what it feels like, when worlds collide.

*kicks out the plug*

 

[GiantRedButton]

*sighs* darn. That was my Christmas, Easter, and Birthday combined into one. Ah well, maybe they will still do it one day.

Anyways, I wish I could say I didnt care, but I had a rather... person, run in with one of the WBC this weekend.

Though... if they were going to sue IP addresses, why dont other corporations do this when attacked by Anon?

You can sue them but its the ip of whatever proxy or unprotected wlan they used.
Unless you get a few dumb ones, but considering the mass of the crowd you'll get a few.

 

[Elburzito]

hahaha XD

Don't these Christians know that Lying is a sin?

Actually it's not, just giving false testimony (as in court testimony) against your neighbor is. Common misunderstanding, but the 10 commandments aren't quite as clear as you might think.

It's true. It tells me I should respect my neighbours, but allows me to have slaves :/.

OT: I honestly believe that the WBC are actually just trolls, and are only coming up with more and more bullshit just to piss people off.

 

[Blind Sight]

Wait, so Anonymous aren't hypocrites? I am both impressed and disappointed that I'm going to miss out on an epic flame war.

 

[Cpu46]

The way the article makes it sound there was no hacking attempt or threat by anyone claiming to be anonymous. It all came from within the WBC itself to gain publicity.

But can it be proven? See, that's the problem. The burden of proof is not on WBC. They say a group of anonymous hackers, claiming to be Anonymous, sent them this letter. Well... how can you prove they didn't?

See, the whole purpose of Anonymous is that you can't prove who did something. They're hidden, unaccountable. So it's stupid to put the burden of proof on WBC in this particular case. You'd have to prove they did it themselves. And if they didn't, it doesn't matter who did it, they are part of Anonymous. Why? Because Anonymous doesn't screen its 'recruits,' so anyone that says they are is.

Unless WBC comes out and says, "Yep, we sent it to ourselves," we're seeing the problem of the self-appointed acti-vigilante, pushing others to be more accountable while dodging accountability themselves.

I definitely see your point, however this entire situation is kinda stupid to debate. It is impossible for WBC to prove that anyone hacked them just the same as it is impossible for Anon to prove that they didn't. Putting the burden of proof on anyone is impossible. Even if the WBC front page was completely taken down or modified it is impossible for either side to prove that the other did it.

And honestly I would expect for Anon to jump in and take the blame for this, it would get them a good number of supporters. The fact that nobody claiming to be Anon has done so outside of the alleged threat makes me think that this is just the WBC crying for the spotlight again.

 

[escapistacctjan2011]

1. You can't have it both ways. Either they're anonymous, or they're an organization. If you can't see a roster, they're anonymous. There's no way to prove who is/isn't 'one of them' without having a list of who they are.

They are an organization called Anonymous. They're aware of who they are, but nobody else it. Kind of like Al'Qaeda; it has some top dogs and some peons, but most of them are not known, and they don't have a base of operations. The thing that makes a cell so dangerous or powerful is that it's hard to stop somebody working from an undisclosed location under an undisclosed name.

2. Their hearts might be in the right place... for a certain group of "them." What about those claiming to be Anonymous now? Are their hearts in the right place? Apparently not, but are they any less dangerous? What if they're an offshoot of the same group of people that have decided to enforce a narrower view of "free speech" or "free information?"

As I said before (that you couldn't possibly chronologically see, but still) they are an organization and people acting as Anonymous are simply posers. They want in on the whole conspiracy party, but they can't be. They're just independent hackers, who are anonymous but not Anonymous. Do you see the difference that the capitalized letter makes? One is an organization and the other is a simple adjective.

Prove it.

Prove it's not them. We're supposed to do what--take their word for it? Why? They have built an entire identity upon not being trustworthy. "I know we don't let you all see who's in our group or anything, and we do illegal things a whole lot while trying not to get caught, but trust us when we say this one wasn't us?"

There are no names or faces to which the proper label is explicitly tied. If someone claims to be Anonymous, it's up to Anonymous to prove that this person is not. That would mean either outing that person or outing themselves... or both. And they won't.

Look at it this way--let's say a little group of Al'Qaeda broke off and decided to exclusively bomb orphanages. They used all the same tools and tactics, and spraypainted the names and symbols all over the site. Then we get an unsigned, untraceable letter "from Al'Qaeda" saying, "That totally wasn't us." Who do we believe?

This is actually one of the most frequently misunderstood things about Anonymous. The claim that anyone becomes part of Anonymous by not giving personal info is a complete lie. Others who simply called themselves Anonymous on their friendster or blog account have been quickly disabused of this in the past.Anonymous is an actual loosely defined group that shares the same culture and mentality. They share the same collective value(s) of lulz and freedom of speech/a free internet, and they share the same history and speak the same internet dialect. They're capable of normal speech, but when it's the hive communicating with itself there's a very specific way of speaking. Anons can tell each other apart in a crowd of netizens. Anons who read the statement put forth to WBC would've instantly recognized that it wasn't one of them who wrote it. Things like "We will target your public Websites, and the propaganda & detestable doctrine that you promote will be eradicated;" or "It is in your best interest to comply now, while the option to do so is still being offered, because we will not relent until you cease the conduction & promotion of all your bigoted operations & doctrines" stand out.

It's hard to explain, but Anonymous can see that this did not come from Anonymous. It's obvious to me that WBC put time and effort into figuring out how to imitate Anon based on the declaration of war against Scientology, but they still fell far short. Anonymous is far less vulnerable to false flag attacks and being coopted than you may think. If they were, they would've been subverted long ago, but the fact of the matter is any unit in the hive can smell an "outsider" who doesn't share the mindset, values, language, and sense of internet history the hive shares. Most attempts at making Anonymous a "personal army" fail long before they even reach the stage of this hoax lurched towards before being exposed as a ruse.

 

[Verlander]

I don't believe it. Until the WBC comes out and admits it, I reckon that it was a third party doing it for shits and giggles. Anyone can claim to be anonymous, they aren't an organised group.