I am quite convinced they are not. Why are you asking?

Given your mention of prior criticism of CoS and the similarity of your thesis to ideas apparently originating from CoS, it seemed a natural question to ask. Obviously, you know your sources better than we do.

I am quite convinced they are not. Why are you asking?

It reads like you're desperately seeking ways to twist my words to bolster your own confusion position. Perhaps you can explain the connotative difference between "I am convinced they are not", and "the are not"?

I think you're looking for your own ride within this theorem.

Putting forth the proposition that lives may be in danger through covert research of a group labeled as "cyber terrorist" organization will endanger lives is either purposefully grandiose for effect, or simply credulous.



[edit on 6-3-2008 by mister.old.school]

If it is Anonymous you refer to, please note that the population of anonymous posters to discussion boards is very large, and extends well beyond those focused on by one or another sensational media outlet (e.g., the Fox 11 cyber-bullying story). As an example:

en.wikipedia.org...

If you would like to continue to discuss this topic, civility would seem to demand that you not make claims about other participants without evidence, as in your initial claim that FBI considers Anonymous to be, in your words, "cyber terrorist".

Your efforts to dilute what "Anonymous" defines are transparent and fail to persuade those of intelligence. The overwhelming majority of "online" discussion board participants are people who pick pseudonyms and register with functional email accounts. A minority of discussion board users participate on sites where "user names" and registration are not required -- hence an "anonymous' moniker is applied. And further, a minority of those nameless participants have colluded in mischievous and/or malevolent actions online that have resulted in the interest from law enforcement.

To synthesize this down, and correct the falsehood of your statement -- a vast number of people online enjoy varying degrees of anonymity while only a very small minority take up a mantel of "Anonymous" and parrot, "We are legion".


You seem to be implying in several of your posts that I may be an agent of the Scientology cult. That is a direct and baseless claim. On the other hand, I'm simply providing existing terminology that has been applied to the "Anonymous" group within my posts, and not extending that to any particular users. If you would seek to associate yourself with a group that has been so broadly labeled as "cyber terrorists", perhaps it would be best to adopt a thick skin and literal cognition.

The moniker Anonymous is, in fact, applied to participants in anonymous discussion generally. The fact that boards where pseudonyms are customary are more familiar to Western posters does not in any way mitigate this. The following, and contained links may be useful as a reference on the point, and for further research:

en.wikipedia.org...



I have phrased my own ideas as questions or private speculation, and have not attributed them baselessly to the FBI or other government agencies.

You appear to have completely missed or evaded my point, let me be more specific.

There are a great many people who post under an automatically applied anonymous title.

There is a very-small minority that proactively take up the "Anonymous Cause" and engage in activity resulting in the "cyber terrorism" label.

These two "anonymous" are not the same.


[edit on 6-3-2008 by mister.old.school]

Given that "Anonymous Cause" seems to be a phrase of your own invention, it would seem to be you who would best know to whom it applies. Is it to the probable handful of people who produced the video now viewed by millions, or perhaps the somewhat larger group participating in DDoS attacks? Is it your contention that, to catch one of these smaller groups, the FBI has encouraged nearly ten thousand to protest worldwide, some having no significant experience or history posting on anonymous forums? Such would seem to be a very odd contention, indeed.

Well, I've been watching this whole anon thing on my own time.
I've been through a series of incidents like this.

Profit Yahweh
Project Serpo
That doomsday one that was going to occur in 2005.

But I'm going to file this one with those simply because collectives don't really need a leader.
Ever seen a mesh network or a p2p system?
Those work very well without a head and function properly in their task.


Anywho, I figured I'd take a look at this topic.
But if the FBI/NSA is in on the gig; then they have some serious dirt on someone somewhere.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by Xabora]

YouTube Link

I would just like to point this out:

6b) Neutrality: The Above Network, LLC provides a forum for discussing a wide variety of subjects, but does not endorse any particular theory, opinion, viewpoint or position on any topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That means that ATS doesn't take a position on anything. That being said, I know we have at least 2 members that are Scientologists. They are as free to post as Anon is. That being said, terms like Scifags, is against the T&C:

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

Same link.

Decorum people. That is all that is asked.

reply to post by intrepid

---

In the interest of neutrality, would it be possible to point out where in this thread said term was used? Because, otherwise, it appears that you are suggesting that one side of this argument is using terms that, as far as I can tell, are not being used in this argument. (I may even be wrong about this, but even so, it would be good to be precise, so as not to suggest it is a general phenomenon, where it is not.)

This would seem to be the most neutral approach to take, anyway.

reply to post by Os Wilkes

---

Please think synthetic voice when reading...Thank you.

Hello...This IS Anonymous.
Thank you...you are wise o wizard of os
We have noted this duality in the time in the USA.
Many Anonymous are with you on the thought.
There is no leader. There is only change. one divided by zero.
Word may change the USA date but the world is 15th.
Anonymous has no color, has no face.
Anonymous has no politics, has no church.
Anonymous make no profit from Anonymous...we give from
Anonymous for Anonymous. Anonymous likes Music and Cake.
If you have need to see the effort of Anonymous in the book.
EPH 6:15
You can also see Anonymous in other text. Look.
We are empathy. Many die and are broken by Dienetics.
Fox is a system of beliefnet . com .. Scientology is there.
Anonymous was slurred by scientology 'fair game rule' and
they invited the Catholic Church to move against Anonymous.
by them pretending to be Anonymous Threatening the church.
If you Please go to You Tube...you will find the polite reply from a
'Real Anonymous to the Pope'. Anonymous has a cult test handed
out on the streets. The Roman catholic church is not a cult.
We wear mask because of the litigation and CIA tactics used by
the cult. V for Vendetts Mask are fine ...but not always required.
Approach Anonymous March 15th-16th? and ask more.
Anon welcome you to talk and learn. We have flyers.
We are your neighbors, we are the postman, we are everyone
you see. This anonymous writing is 50 years old...there goes the youth theory...Hackers on steroids my but... say!
This is my ONLY visit to see this site
and thread and the proxy ID and mail address
shall now disappear around the world.
Anonymous
3/15/08
bye
V

---

Mod Edit: Quote trim, 'Reply To' feature used. Please see Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote Thank you - Jak]

[edit on 9/3/08 by JAK]

reply to post by Anonymous13

---

In short, no.

In more detail:

Everyone makes mistakes and upon arrival not everyone is aware of the standards required on ATS. I'm sure you can understand that for staff to run about publicly pointing at members with 'look, see, he said/she said' would not be conducive to the smooth operating of ATS and only give cause for some to cry victimization. Especially in such a situation as this where, ironically in reference to your post, a member of Anon may quite easily suggest that you were in fact a someone opposed to Anon and were actually attempting to lure staff into highlighting potentially politically damaging offerings from Anon in order to harm the cause; acquiescence could therefore imply a lack of neutrality.

Plus, if, despite such comments being contrary to the Terms and Conditions of Use, we did not edit out such derogatory comments (possibly posted by advocates of Scientology playing agent provocateur?) it could be suggested by members of Anon that we are allowing them to remain in order to damage the reputation of the group; therefore implying a lack of neutrality.

So, in answer to your question and in interest of neutrality, no.

Of course that said we can go round in circles and it is quite possible that, upon editing out any offensive comments, those who are opposed to Anon may feel unhappy, that said comment is exemplary of any unpleasant mentality which prevails, so they should remain and by editing out, T&C's not withstanding, we are acting in a manner which is supportive of Anon; therefore implying a lack of neutrality.

Again, it could be see that allowing any offensive comment directed at those who are opposed to Anon to remain is symbolic of support and, yes, you guessed it, therefore implies a lack of neutrality.

The bottom line though is this: If something posted goes against the T&C's the content is edited with the offending material removed as soon as it is brought to staff attention and, as a gentle reminder to all members, a staff edit note is left pointing out which portion of the Terms and Conditions of Use were violated.

I hope that has answered your question. In future please feel free to U2U staff over such matters where you can pose a question and receive an explanation without disturbing the thread.




Now, with my apologies to all for the interruption please let's get back to the topic at hand.

Thank you,

Jak






[edit on 9/3/08 by JAK]

reply to post by JAK

---

Part of the relevance to this thread is that almost the entire prequel on this page concerns the use of offensive language, and not by Anon. I have been following this thread rather closely, and see no edits on this page, at least, that could be obviously related to the comments noted. If the edit were on another page, perhaps it could have been remarked that current participants were not the target of the comment. You may, however, wish to view another thread, where the term seems to have appeared rather liberally:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again, the rather direct relevance to this thread is that almost the entire prequel of this page has been concerned with the use of offensive language, and the comments from moderation would seem to be almost directly at odds with a neutral examination of this. A coincidence, perhaps, but, on the face of it at least, not, in the strictest sense, neutral. (And that was, I assume, the goal of the exercise.)

I agree.

The word scifag should not be used, even if the dangerous cult of scientology has repeatetly caused the ruin of thousands of people and many claiming sexual abuse, false imprisonment, detachment from families, fraud, and a host of other illegal activities.

Even though moderators on this board continuously allow defamation against Anon despite of supposed "neutrality" (just look at the top of this page)

Regardless, the word scifag, should not be used.

We are use to dealing with hypocrisy.

Lets focus on this destructive nature of this cult and why it harms democracy.

No's 18 and 19 in the charter of human rights Hold freedom of thought a basic human right. This is placed to stop controlling institutions wether government, religuos or other wise from controlling the thoughts of it's membership.

Charter 18 : Freedom of Thought, We all have the right to beleive what we want to believe to have a religion or to change it if we want.

Currently most anon members hold the view that the Cult of Scientology does not allow people to change their religion if they are unhappy with it.
Further, CO$ impliments a system whereby peoples spiritual freedom, in regards, is in fact suppressed. Any critisim of scientology is ruthlessly crushed to the point of like in the case of investigation reporter, Pauline Cooper, had her apartment broken into by cult members, had paper stolen that contained her fingerprints, and then the paper was used in a bomb plot against the an arab embassy in which she was charged. The truth of her situation only came out some five years later because of unrelated police raids on the cult found that indeed she was not only framed but the whole operation was planned as a greater megaplan to suppress all critisim.

All religion get criticim. Some defend themselves and some just don't worry. But it is difficult to find a case where all critiscm is crushed.

We have seen ex-members come out from scientology and are totally framed, and degraded. They hire private investigators to totally destroy reputations. Some examples are found on the web. Pages totally made just to destroy ex-members who give information on brainwashing and cult strongholding.

However, how many people coming out of this cult that say, yes it just wasn't for me? Why do consistently so many people come out saying that criminal activities and abuses of human rights have taken place? Considering the common knowledge that CO$ fights with ex-members and sues a large amount of detracters and critics. Why would so many also come forward?
It is because it is in fact a destructive cult rather than a fringe religion.

Are the rights of these ex-members to be taken into consideration?

Can they not have the right to speak out for themselves or take the dangerous cult to courts without being defamed, investigated, tracked, broken into or any of the other things CO$ consistently does as per their official response to such matters?

There question of how much rights a religion has over individuals is determined by it's content. If the church partakes in illegal activities the state has a right to respond. This is what we saw in The Children of God membership whereby children were encouraged to be present while adults had sex.

YouTube Link

YouTube Link