The "Anonymous" Scientology Protest is an NSA/FBI Fishing Expedition, page 29

privacy

Pages: << 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 117 times

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 04:18 AM by Anonymous13

Originally posted by Arm Of Geddon

Originally posted by Anonymous13
Anon does not have common ideals. And it cannot be twisted.

We wouldn't have this thread if anonymous didn't have at least one common ideal (aka stop the alleged abuses by Co$).

Were you to visit one of our forums, you would soon discover that you are very, very wrong.

The second sentence is opinion and I would also label it as wishful thinking. To absolutely believe that the direction of a bunch of people cannot be steered is just willful blindness. The possibility exists and has many examples in history.

Not in the history of anonymous on-line communication. As my colleague above noted, Anonymous has no loyalty. There is nothing to steer with. And if you think there is, then I would ask you to demonstrate this.

Originally posted by Anonymous13
Ah. You are talking about real-life protests. Well, that is not really an anonymous affair.

I just watched a video of an "Anonymous" protest. Unless CGI has taken some quantum leaps I do believe it was real-life.

Arranged by Anonymous, yes. And perhaps participants might have referred to themselves as 'Anonymous' in the same way that I do here. But here, I am not anonymous (I am "Anonymous13"), and in real life, protestors are not anonymous. We just use the name out of affection for the on-line forums.

It would be a simple task for the media to use the name as a means of molding public perception against the non-group known as "Anonymous". Public perception is geared to the lowest common denominator.

Remarkable that it hasn't happened. One of the interesting things about the Church of Scientology is that media loathe them. Were you expecting Anonymous to try to extend the workweek to six days, or something unpopular like that?

You seem to be forgetting that no one is truly anonymous. You may be anonymous to me because I don't have the technology to find you. But the technology is out there. They told us they have it.

Irrelevant to the point, but I would ask that you not assume too much about what I remember and forget.

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 04:20 AM by undo

My message to Tom Cruise!
And I hope he gets it!

YouTube Link

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 05:08 AM by another anon

you hope tom starts playing WoW?

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 05:13 AM by helatrobus

since we already know from past history
that people cannot be forced into a particular religious belief, we know
also that what he was promoting, happily, was genocide on a global
scale.

RE: Tom Cruise and the Cult of Scientology

YOU GOT IT!
HOLE IN ONE

Genocide on a global scale.

[edit on 1-3-2008 by helatrobus]

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 05:25 AM by undo

Originally posted by another anon
you hope tom starts playing WoW?

The words to the song playing in the background, very relevant.

now the ending's played out this.
just like a paper back novel.
let's rewrite an ending that fits
and not a hollywood horror.

boy, if that doesn't say it all, i dunno what does.

[edit on 1-3-2008 by undo]

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 05:27 AM by helatrobus

this

[edit on 1-3-2008 by helatrobus]

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 05:30 AM by helatrobus

Exactly!

If a NWO Is going to come up in the next few years. Only an anon like organisation could stop it.

The FBI shouldn't be the only ones studying this phenomena.

Anyone interested in stopping a NWO should as well.

[edit on 1-3-2008 by helatrobus]

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 05:39 AM by Arm Of Geddon

Originally posted by Anonymous13Were you to visit one of our forums, you would soon discover that you are very, very wrong.

That sentence isn't meant to be taken to the extreme of me suggesting that everyone on those forums is on the anti-Co$ thing. But action has been taken on a common ideal. There is a group of people that took part in that action. That group has given themselves a title. The individuals can be tracked and possibly compromised. Utilizing the joke of the name "anonymous" as a way to deny the possibility that there is more going on, doesn't work.

I get it. There actually is no anonymous but yet there is, but there isn't, yet there is, ad infintum. I really do get it. But angular semantic navigation does not discount the points raised. In other words, it has nothing to do with what we think the definition of is, is.

Originally posted by Anonymous13Not in the history of anonymous on-line communication. As my colleague above noted, Anonymous has no loyalty. There is nothing to steer with. And if you think there is, then I would ask you to demonstrate this.

The very fact that there are videos, protests, and an ongoing debate in this forum show something different. After years of alleged Co$ abuse, only now does this obscure non-group of non-loyal netizens jump to action? It fits a pattern. I know the "internet control" pattern is deliberate. I do not know if the "AnonCoS" event fits the pattern deliberately or is unintentional. But it does have the possibility of fitting in nicely and with great timing to boot.

You ask me to demonstrate this possibility to you. And if I can't then it's impossibility stands? That doesn't follow. My inability, due to lack of resources, has nothing to do with it being possible.

Originally posted by Anonymous13But here, I am not anonymous...We just use the name out of affection for the on-line forums.

Why is this point constantly rehashed? I understand where the name comes from. It does not refute the points though. I find it interesting that some will absolutely and completely deny the possibility that this event could be more than meets the eye.

Originally posted by Anonymous13Remarkable that it hasn't happened. One of the interesting things about the Church of Scientology is that media loathe them. Were you expecting Anonymous to try to extend the workweek to six days, or something unpopular like that?

I don't personally find it remarkable. The media does what it's told to do.

But categorically denying the possibility seems suspect and lends more weight to the OP's original postulation.

Originally posted by Anonymous13Irrelevant to the point, but I would ask that you not assume too much about what I remember and forget.

It's not irrelevant to my point. And the second sentence was just a figure of speech. Please don't attempt to make it look like I'm getting personal.

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 05:48 AM by helatrobus

and this

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 05:59 AM by helatrobus

I mean who would want another arm of geddon?

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 06:06 AM by undo

Originally posted by helatrobus
I mean who would want another arm of geddon?

The Apocalypse is over-rated.

Dead people is not my idea of a fun day at the park, even if I don't agree with them, I certainly don't want to see them dead nor would I be willing to kill them

I tend to agree that the amount of psyche drugs that are prescribed is unnecessary, but I know they have also helped people who really did need them. I'm one of those people that try to fix things the old-fashioned way, if possible (by monitoring what i eat, taking supplements and herbs if necessary). Heck just spices in the cabinet have medicinal properties (cayenne pepper, for example).

EDIT: However, I do like to play WoW, but I can separate fantasy from reality. I don't view fighting digitized images as being the same as fighting real people. I don't even believe in the death penalty in the real world (trademark, copyright) !

[edit on 1-3-2008 by undo]

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 06:07 AM by Arm Of Geddon

Originally posted by helatrobus
I mean who would want another arm of geddon?

LoLz

Here's a question...

Who doesn't want the NWO to come to power?

I mean wouldn't it be easier to reform 1 world government than 192 separate ones?

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 06:12 AM by undo

Originally posted by Arm Of Geddon

LoLz

Here's a question...

Who doesn't want the NWO to come to power?

I mean wouldn't it be easier to reform 1 world government than 192 separate ones?

New thread needed!
This will get off topic so fast it'll make your head spin!

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 06:21 AM by helatrobus

My sentiments exactly

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 09:10 AM by Anonymous13

Originally posted by Arm Of Geddon

Originally posted by Anonymous13Were you to visit one of our forums, you would soon discover that you are very, very wrong.

That sentence isn't meant to be taken to the extreme of me suggesting that everyone on those forums is on the anti-Co$ thing. But action has been taken on a common ideal. There is a group of people that took part in that action. That group has given themselves a title. The individuals can be tracked and possibly compromised. Utilizing the joke of the name "anonymous" as a way to deny the possibility that there is more going on, doesn't work.

I get it. There actually is no anonymous but yet there is, but there isn't, yet there is, ad infintum. I really do get it. But angular semantic navigation does not discount the points raised. In other words, it has nothing to do with what we think the definition of is, is.

Anonymous was responsible for the initial organization of the project, but the project has, in an oft-invoked word, decentralized. It now includes a number of sites, and a non-anonymous (like this) forum, as well as its original anonymous forums. Given that the project has attracted a large number of participants, it is unclear whether most current involved parties have spent much time at all posting on anonymous forums (Anonymous proper). Hence, to track Anonymous by tracking participation in the Chanology project would seem to be perhaps a bit futile, as the false positives would be high, and false negatives higher.

Originally posted by Anonymous13Not in the history of anonymous on-line communication. As my colleague above noted, Anonymous has no loyalty. There is nothing to steer with. And if you think there is, then I would ask you to demonstrate this.

The very fact that there are videos, protests, and an ongoing debate in this forum show something different. After years of alleged Co$ abuse, only now does this obscure non-group of non-loyal netizens jump to action? It fits a pattern. I know the "internet control" pattern is deliberate. I do not know if the "AnonCoS" event fits the pattern deliberately or is unintentional. But it does have the possibility of fitting in nicely and with great timing to boot.

You ask me to demonstrate this possibility to you. And if I can't then it's impossibility stands? That doesn't follow. My inability, due to lack of resources, has nothing to do with it being possible.

Many things are possible, but only few of these possibilities are real. To cherry-pick possibilities into a solution is to provide no solution at all.

Originally posted by Anonymous13But here, I am not anonymous...We just use the name out of affection for the on-line forums.

Why is this point constantly rehashed? I understand where the name comes from. It does not refute the points though. I find it interesting that some will absolutely and completely deny the possibility that this event could be more than meets the eye.

Perhaps the point is rehashed because it seems to be quite persistently overlooked.

Originally posted by Anonymous13Irrelevant to the point, but I would ask that you not assume too much about what I remember and forget.

It's not irrelevant to my point. And the second sentence was just a figure of speech. Please don't attempt to make it look like I'm getting personal.

Oh, but it is irrelevant. The anonymity of anonymous on-line communication is not the absolute anonymity of no one ever knowing who you are, but of participants in the discussion itself being hard-pressed to distinguish other participants from each other (in contrast, say, with this forum, where such distinction is usually easy). Protecting one's identity on-line, while important, is largely independent of this.

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 10:10 PM by helatrobus

So to conclude this thread for those that can't wad through pages is that the FBI are likely to be listening to the propaganda of the Cult of $cientology (CO$).

However, the government agencies are likely to be letting it go because they have a long history of being burnt by CO$ in the past,

Full listing on FBI records relating to CO$ here

In particular is operation snow white and operation freekout

It is highly likely that the FBI would in fact let anonymous progress towards it's stated goal as the criminal history of CO$ is long and extensive. It is a criminal organization that makes the mafia look like school children.

Any small past DDOS attacks will be quickly forgotten as "childish pranks" when in comparison to the extensive criminal activities of US fugitive L R Hubbard. Wanted in three countries at the time of his death, spending his last 6 or so years in hiding.

The destructive cult is banned in France, Germany, Spain and Greece because of it's criminal history and is seen as dangerous to the progress of democracy in those countries.

CO$ is only recognized in Australia and the US which highlights the massive abilities of those governments to foster free expression

However, This atmosphere has also harbored some dangerous cults such as Jonestown, Heavens Gate etc... which sought to control their parishioners with fear of "an outside world" and "impending doom" thereby trying to take away the freedom by offering an "illusive answer" and keeping them under control. ..

When authorities investigate these cults there is a history of eclectic leaders with enlarged egos and drunken with pride unable to comply with democratic ideals and rather than hand themselves in, will do as much damage to society as possible by using their brainwashed members who are looking for the exclusive freedom they offer, to do drastic things that otherwise normal people would not.

The criminal activities of L R Hubbard are continuing to this day in the current management of The Cult of Scientology. The goal of scientology is to make everyone in the world "clear" This goal is open and it is aggressively sought through massive dissemination programs and attacking anyone by any means that tries to stand in their way. Mainly by abusing the law system to force bankruptcy of
claimants.

The FBI at this time while neither encouraging nor "publicly" supporting anon would more than likely diverge little resources from real criminal activities such as pedophilia, Al Quada, and many other percieved security threats cuurently facing the United States of America.

The O.P offers annonymous sources as the only real connection in his argument. While appearing intelligent by placing his argument with obvious points, his connection between his propositions and conclusion are only tied by "anonymouse sources"

In doing so he hides in anonyminity, the very thing he is trying to dismiss as an effective form of communication.

Given the magnetation of people with mental conditions and states of ego disfunction development, to conspiracy sites, it is an even chance that mr.old.school, given that he only has sources as repute, is in fact self deluded. Either way we cannot know, except take his word for it.

We have seen some serious discussion, passionate claims, new information, high censorship and some very, very funny moments...

But this discussion has missed one thing.

THIS

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 10:21 PM by Prophet-Ezekiel

GOD!!!!

I DID NOT COME HERE TOO LOOK AT SCIENTOLOGY THREADS.....

we need a scientologist thread, so we can get them out of the general conspiracies. X_X

reply posted on 1-3-2008 @ 11:07 PM by helatrobus

I DID NOT COME HERE TOO LOOK AT SCIENTOLOGY THREADS.....

Can you hear me, Major Tom?

[edit on 1-3-2008 by helatrobus]

reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 04:28 AM by undo

Originally posted by Prophet-Ezekiel

This post is confusing. What do you mean exactly?

Helatrobus,

here's another, this one reminds me of the futility of it all.

YouTube Link

reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 04:55 AM by rationalgaze

reply to post by David2012

I know you didn't read the thread but I made the same point earlier. The good of anonymous is in the vast, vast minority (like me) and the rest are all blithering retards. Which is why I have chosen not to side with Anon in this ordeal. I'm deeply embarassed by them and can't see how anyone would choose to be represented by an anonymous message board. It's like one of their weird sick bullying jokes except dragged into real life. I think another minority is the rabid militant 4channer, those of which seem to be doing the protesting. I hate those guys.