Westboro Baptists Stage Fake Anonymous Threat

[Twilight_guy]

How exactly do you put out a press report from a group that is inherently unidentifiable? How do you authenticate a letter that by definition comes from someone you don't know? Couldn't any schmuck claim to act for the group and publish whatever the hell he wants? how does this whole anonymity bullshit work? Ahh whatever. the WBC isn't worth most people's time because they are just a crazy fringe group. Its only notable when they try to hack God or something.

 

[fundayz]

So "anonymous" has a spokesperson now or what?

That is what I am wondering. How does anyone know if Anonymous didn't send the letter? Does Anonymous always know what Anonymous is doing?

Everything Anon says should always be taken with a grain of salt, they are anonymous after all.

However, what is more likely? That the WBC is throwing a publicity stunt like they have done multiple times in the past or that Anon is scared to back it's threats?

I think the answer is pretty clear.

 

[Faladorian]

Actually, no, they aren't an organization. Seriously, look it up. "Anonymous" is simply a swarm of trolls who like to try and make some kind of difference in the world in their spare time. Anyone and everyone can be and is Anonymous. That's why the idea of a "press release" is absurd.

They are, and the fact that they can make a difference and do make a difference is what's so honorable about them. Also, the Westboro Baptist Church is

a swarm of trolls who like to try and make some kind of difference in the world in their spare time.

except they're horribly unintelligent inbreds, while Anon knows what it's doing.

 

[subject_87]

Dangit, Anonymous should've taken down that theologically bankrupt blight on Christianity everywhere. They would get infinite Internets from me if they did that.

 

[orangeban]

With the WBC frankly I think, believe what you want but you don't have to tell anyone about it.

Go Anonymous! I and millions of others are tired of being told that we're are going to an philosophical plain of debateable existence. I was genuinally surprised by the WBC about this though, not because I think there not despicable but because I've read their website (as they say, for teh lulz) and they seem pretty pro-honesty and truth, or at least their warped truth. But this is what I get for trusting people who think it's perfectly acceptable to protest at innocent's funerals.

On another note; have you seen their website www.godhatestheworld.com? It's amazing! They have an interactive map where you click on a country and it says why they hate it. Great.

 

[Bobic]

I don't particularly like to be defending WBC but do you have any proof that they faked the whole thing? I'd say it's much more likely some randomer sent them a threatening email claiming to be Anonymous. Or hell, it could even have been a member of Anonymous. Just because a spokesperson (seriously, anonymous have a spokesperson?) says they weren't involved doesn't mean they know the actions of everyone working under their banner.

I expect rampant jumping to conclusions of fox news, not you.

 

[Kavonde]

That's a shame, Anon. There are kids being brainwashed in there. They're perfectly open in saying they believe in a doctrine of hate, and that they want their children to learn it, too. You guys might skate the edge of your free speech ethics in doing it, but taking down the WBC would be a service to mankind.

 

[Zaik]

Who called it?
<-----This guy did.
Maybe not exactly, but I was about as close as it gets without seeing the future.

 

[Hitchmeister]

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.

I'm sorry, I'm not a good enough Christian to draw a distinction between telling lies about the actions of others and "bearing false witness against my neighbors." I guess that's why I'm going straight to hell. I prefer to treat people decently, rather than do whatever I want and apologize to the big sky bully later.

 

[Bobic]

So "anonymous" has a spokesperson now or what?

That is what I am wondering. How does anyone know if Anonymous didn't send the letter? Does Anonymous always know what Anonymous is doing?

Everything Anon says should always be taken with a grain of salt, they are anonymous after all.

However, what is more likely? That the WBC is throwing a publicity stunt like they have done multiple times in the past or that Anon is scared to back it's threats?

I think the answer is pretty clear.

You do realise that not everything boils down to a black or white 2 option choice? There are other options. For example, some lone member of anonymous or just some randomer sends the threatening email to WBC.

 

[Stevepinto3]

I'm going to put this as bluntly as possible.

FUCKING CALLED IT.

 

[Cavouku]

Defining the perpetrator when dealing with Anonymous is... odd. In a way, it's sort of a win-win scenario for them; basically it comes off as being that they are acting individually, together. If an individual deviates from the ultimatum, they are ostracized as not being involved, but aside from that, everyone is Anonymous.

To be perfectly honest, the only way to judge if it is "Anonymous" or a deviant is observational patterns. As the... spokesperson mentioned? Interesting. Anyways, as they mentioned, Anonymous supports free speech, as annoying as some of that speech is.

Though there may be an entire band of people devoted to trolling the hell out of WBC (Personally I'd "turn the other cheek" for such people), guising as Anonymous, and acting with the same tactics, the difference between Trolls and Anonymous is in goal.

If this wasn't something that the WBC just made as a guilt card (see: breaking your own toe), it's got the "Troll" feel. Anonymous is too busy trying to dig up dirt on big business types apposing WikiLeaks.

 

[Cavouku]

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.

I'm sorry, I'm not a good enough Christian to draw a distinction between telling lies about the actions of others and "bearing false witness against my neighbors." I guess that's why I'm going straight to hell. I prefer to treat people decently, rather than do whatever I want and apologize to the big sky bully later.

...Er, sorry to be "that guy", but that came off as a bit rude. I... are you upset about something he said, or am I misunderstanding?

 

[standokan]

This'll be like reversed psycholomogy for Anon, the church is pretty much screwed right now.

 

[fundayz]

You do realise that not everything boils down to a black or white 2 option choice? There are other options. For example, some lone member of anonymous or just some randomer sends the threatening email to WBC.

Then that wouldn't be Anonymous sending the letter now would it?

It still boils down to two options: Anonymous as a whole sent the letter or they didn't. Since I believe Anonymous more than the WBC i'll go with the latter.

 

[Popido]

Well played anon.

These people arent running forward for greed and corruption. They're just stupid as fuck. Their existence itself will bring them down on their own and they mirror the flaws of religion that they're so proud of, so why waste time on them when you could post ponies?

So "anonymous" has a spokesperson now or what?

That is what I am wondering. How does anyone know if Anonymous didn't send the letter? Does Anonymous always know what Anonymous is doing?

Yes.

It agrees. Disagrees. And the Hydra bites its own heads while forming an agreement and an "official" message. Its unable to lie.

 

[Bobic]

You do realise that not everything boils down to a black or white 2 option choice? There are other options. For example, some lone member of anonymous or just some randomer sends the threatening email to WBC.

Then that wouldn't be Anonymous sending the letter now would it?

It still boils down to two options: Anonymous as a whole sent the letter or they didn't. Since I believe Anonymous more than the WBC i'll go with the latter.

My point is you don't have to believe one more than the other. WBC probably did receive the email and anonymous (as a group) probably didn't send it. Why would WBC make this up, how much recognition could this possibly garner outside of nerdy gatherings like this one? This is just the escapist news reporters taking some facts, twisting them and adding to them to make a more interesting news story.

 

[xnickx5757]

http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=492

http://www.anonops.net:9090/ channel #opwestboro

 

[Dogstile]

Permalink

What's this, Anonymous? You're discovering you don't have control over who dons your mantle for whatever cause they see fit?

I'm pretty sure that's the entire point of anon and that they know it. You know, considering that's the point of Anon.

 

[fundayz]

My point is you don't have to believe one more than the other. WBC probably did receive the email and anonymous (as a group) probably didn't send it. Why would WBC make this up, how much recognition could this possibly garner outside of nerdy gatherings like this one? This is just the escapist news reporters taking some facts, twisting them and adding to them to make a more interesting news story.

I agree, there are plethora of possible sources for a threat. However...

The publicity would not be gained through their taunts towards anonymous, but rather from the coverage they would had Anonymous taken their bait; it would elevate them to the level of security firms, Amazon, and other actually note-worthy groups that Anonymous has attacked in the past.

Also, if the release is to be trusted (which it really can't due to Anonymous'... anonimity) the WBC could gain from suing DDoS attackers.