Before you join that witch hunt - do your frigging homework

Recently it's been in the news that a group calling itself "Anonymous" has targeted the Church of Scientology (religion or cult, flip a coin) for distributed denial-of-service attacks, server cracking, and other general harassment. One private communications forum I was on featured people gleefully presenting a 69 megabyte compressed collection of their supposedly "secret" files, while another denizen growled that hackers in the group should "go after their financials".

The latest press release from Anonymous, processed through a voice synthesizer, lists the many apparent sins of Scientology and ends with the ominous Sweeney Todd-like statements: "We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us."

Now, I am hardly one to sympathize with the Church of Scientology. As far as I'm concerned, it's a wacky cult.

But what bothered me about this situation is that you have this group of hackers, et. al. rattling a serious sabre in the cult's direction, and the Department of Hopeless Insecurity isn't the least bit concerned.

So I started connecting the dots. First thing that came to mind is why ONLY go after Scientology? I mean, the Unification Church is another crazy religious cult that certainly engages in questionable activities - but they get away with it because Moon pretty much owns certain businesses and selected Congresscritters lock, stock and barrel. The religious right LOVES Moon. Corporate right-wing Christian wack jobs of his calibre are hard to find these days - they need all the help they can get. He's contributed close to a billion dollars in both lobbying and campaign contribution funds for certain Congresscritters.

So why isn't Anonymous going after the Moonies, too? And how can it be that DHS isn't taking their attacks on Scientology seriously enough to do anything about it? Could it be that they're a government front?

The remaining question: "Why go after Scientology at all?"

The answer: VALKYRIE.

Valkyrie is a movie that was shot last fall by famous Scientologist Tom Cruise, with assistance from fellow Scientologist John Travolta. It's in the can as of last October, and scheduled for release this summer. It concerns the real-life story of Nazi insiders who led a failed assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler and his entire high level staff.

Watch the trailer and then ask yourselves who might possibly have a problem with the Scientologists making this movie. Who might want to bring down the Church of Scientology and annex it's money and resources at all costs - before this movie is released?

Moral: don't get caught up in the glamor attached to mindless hatred and fearmongering. When hatred and fear are "cool", lies and manipulation will not be not far behind. Don't let yourself be used. There are two sides to every story. GET THE OTHER ONE BEFORE YOU ACT. Do your fucking homework when someone tries to get you to hurt somebody else you don't even know.

"First they came for the Scientologists, and I didn't complain because I wasn't a Scientologist..."

•  Tips for your friendly neighborhood valkyrie!

  by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:36:24 AM PDT

  •  Well, actually...

    Anonymous is largely disinterested in its own causes. No matter what reasoning it may offer (and it has offered one), the root cause of its mischeif is pranksterism. Don't offer anonymous any more credence by attributing any ulterior motives to its behavior.

    At any rate, in a battle between the scum of the internet (which is what Anonymous is) and Scientology, we can't lose.

    by Practical Progressive on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:47:03 AM PDT

    •  And who's WE, kimosabe?

      You don't find it interesting that a religious group whose members made a movie about the assassination of Hitler is being targeted for harassment - and the harassment is being enabled by several US government agencies who are blatantly looking the other way?

      by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:59:48 AM PDT

      •  IMO Scientology deserves everything

        it gets. Nobody plays dirtier than the "Church" of Scientology. Nobody. I used to be skeptical like you, and spent an entire summer researching the group after Tom Cruise last episode. The sooner that dog is put down, the safer we'll all be.

        by belly on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:02:37 AM PDT

        •  I'd feel a bit better

          if I saw less opinion and more fact in these replies.

          by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:05:42 AM PDT

          •  that's rich

            So, our opinions about your logic-starved speculations are not welcome in your diary? Then take it somewhere else.

            by subtropolis on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:06:07 AM PDT

            •  Is that the best you can do?

              Not good enough. I've got logic. You've got ad hominems. I'll stay right here.

              by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:30:29 AM PDT

              •  I'm Still Waiting to See This

                Much-advertised "logic" that you're speaking of.  Care to point me in its direction?

                by karateexplosions on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:10:37 PM PDT

                •  Sure. Cut and paste is my friend.

                  The facts are as clear as any scientific experiment.

                  You have a control group and an experimental group.

                  An action is occurring on the experimental group.

                  The publicly given reasons for the action must be false because those reasons fully apply to both groups.

                  The only difference between the control and experimental groups is the level of support and approval the Bush administration has or does not have for them.

                  It's crystal clear, really. No theory here at all. Just facts.

                  It's essentially the same behavior our government engages in with third world puppet dictators. The right wing will rail against Castro and Chavez forever, while turning a simultaneous blind eye to the atrocities of Pakistan's Musharrif and Columbia's Uribe. And of course, everybody is quick to claim that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are/were dirtbags, and just as quick to forget when they used to be OUR dirtbags.

                  by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:20:51 PM PDT

                  •  wow, i hope you're not actually a scientist

                    You do not have "control and experimental groups" here, but a bunch of assumptions.

                    by subtropolis on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:37:28 PM PDT

                    •  Two cults

                      Both do the same things.

                      One is harassed and one is condoned.

                      The reasons given for the harassment don't make sense because they're things that both cults do.

                      So the reason for the harassment must be something else.

                      The only difference is that BushCo approves of one cult and does not approve of the other.

                      Which also explains why the group doing the harassment is allowed to operate outside the law as well.

                      It's pretty simple. What part don't you understand?

                      by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:47:31 PM PDT

              •  what ad hominem?

                My comment was pointedly referring to your diary, not you.

                So, is this the best you can do?

                by subtropolis on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:36:02 PM PDT

                •  It's the best I intend to do

                  for you. Let's put it that way.

                  by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:48:10 PM PDT

      •  We = the sane and normal population of the world

        And no, I don't. You're attributing traits to a group that simply doesn't CARE about those traits. At the end of the day Anonymous' sole motive is to get attention and aquire laughs. You're trying to turn pranksters and bullies into skinheads. The shoe doesn't fit.

        by Practical Progressive on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:03:08 AM PDT

        •  I don't agree with your definitions

          Sane and normal people are capable of leaving well enough alone. If a cult needs to be dealt with, let the law deal with it. And let all dangerous cults be dealt with equally. That isn't happening here.

          That press release doesn't sound like it's looking for laughs and attention to me. It looks like a threat.

          by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:07:39 AM PDT

          •  I'm not equating the actions of Anonymous

            With the actions of sane or normal people. They're a bunch of mad bullies who profit from the anarchy of the internet. No question. Their actions are illegal and I'm shocked that law enforcement HASN'T yet come down on them for their myriad illegal activities.

            However, I can't be bothered to care about the fate of a cult of murderers and theives who profit from the suffering of others.

            And you need to take off your tin-foil hat. Anonymous is posturing. Their "press release" is as funny to them as anything else because people like you take them seriously.

            by Practical Progressive on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:11:07 AM PDT

            •  You folks sure are "shocked" a lot

              but then you refuse to do the rest of the math. Well, I don't really have the luxury of your apathy. I happen to know several of the people in Anonymous - or at least, they are Anonymous sympathizers.

              And I'm not impressed by them, but I do take seriously that they're wantonly being allowed to get away with what they're doing BY OUR GOVERNMENT.

              When that sort of thing becomes the status quo, things can certainly escalate to the point where one group of murderers and thieves is simply supplanted by another. If I am going to concern myself with murderers and thieves, in fact, I don't really have to look far beyond my own government at all, never mind some cult.

              by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:25:39 AM PDT

              •  Well, to be honest, Anonymous is small fish

                And worse, from a governmental perspective, their small fish that are costly and frustratringly difficult to fry. Homeland Security has more to worry about than pimply-faced teens enaging in e-bullying.

                And if you knew members of Anonymous, you'd know what this was all about. Trust me, it has NOTHING to do with a movie about Nazis.

                by Practical Progressive on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:30:11 AM PDT

                •  Heh :)

                  They're not who you think they are, and Homeland Security knows exactly who they are on some cases. In fact, I daresay more than a few of them are on the payroll. I've operated in the NYC IT arena for the last 25 years and I know from whence I speak.

                  Of course, maybe 25 YEARS ago they were pimply faced teens... heh.

                  by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:36:13 AM PDT

                  •  They're exactly who I think they are

                    A loose coalition of troublemakers, pranksters and hackers whose first and last interest is in "Epic Lulz". Causes are merely affectations for them. They aren't a conspiracy,they're a bunch of internet assholes who glory in the relative freedom of cyberspace.

                    Don't go tinfoil hat on me here. Anonymous is plenty of vile things, but a conspiracy it is not.

                    by Practical Progressive on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:40:49 AM PDT

                    •  You are both right and wrong

                      Yes they certainly are internet assholes, and what they glory in is not the freedom of cyberspace (such as it is) but the ability to abuse it in order to power trip and hurt people.

                      They're being used as fall guys for this one. No tinfoil hat here. Just experience.

                      by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:50:08 AM PDT

              •  By our government?

                Do you understand how bot-nets and DDOS attacks work?  The government doesn't have anything to do with it.

                by nightsweat on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:31:27 AM PDT

                •  Oh PLEASE!

                  Don't EVEN pretend to tell me that the government doesn't have the capability or the wherewithal to either start, monitor or stop a DDOS if it wants to. Cut the shit. Pull that line on someone who never held a military clearance. It won't fly here. They found RTM fast enough.

                  by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:39:38 AM PDT

                  •  Yeah, right

                    Tell me about how the bot-nets that send spam and initiate virus attacks are sanctioned by the NSA next.

                    by nightsweat on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:41:05 AM PDT

                    •  But then I'd have to kill you. LOL

                      and I'm not even a Scientologist or anything.

                      Don't be a complete idiot. If a group of cack-handed hackers can do it, the NSA can do it and make it LOOK like a bunch of cack-handed hackers.

                      Better yet, they can take a bunch of known cack-handed hackers and set them up to take whatever fall comes down if they get out of hand.

                      by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:52:59 AM PDT

                      •  Your usng Occam's

                        Two handed left winded underwound grundingen to arrive at that conclusion. It's Byzantine.

                        by nightsweat on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:52:04 PM PDT

                  •  If you had a military clearance

                    That doesn't say much. There are a lot of different types of military clearance. Presumably you're trying to lead us to a conclusion that you were some Top Secret spook guy who Knows Things nobody else can see.

                    You are either paranoid, misguided, deeply uninformed or insane. Whatever, your post is good for a few LULz at best.

                    by xenubarb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:38:22 AM PDT

                    •  Not interested.

                      You're a troll.

                      by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:21:14 AM PDT

                      •  I've been a USENET Flame Warrior since 1992...

                        ...and I know a troll when I see one.  FWIW, a lot of the posters identified here as "trolls" aren't really trolls at all; they're mission posters.  A good USENET troll is interested in trouble and attention seeking for its own sake.  Like Anonymous usually is, they're in it for the LULZ.  Mission posters, on the other hand, aren't in it for the LULZ.  They have a cause, and they post to further that cause (BTW, that makes all of us on Daily Kos mission posters; it just happens that our mission conforms with that of the community, so it builds it up instead of disrupting it--context matters).  Concern trolls and purity trolls aren't here to disrupt for LULZ alone; they're here to disrupt another group's cause and/or promote their own cause at the expense of the group.  The most extreme are like the Blues Brothers, who are "on a mission from God."  Those people are insufferable in the wrong context.

                        Back to Xenubarb.  She isn't contradicting you for the LULZ or to disrupt the forum.  She is also neither a concern troll nor, as far as I can tell, a purity troll.  As one can see from her handle and profile, Xenubarb is an anti-Scientology mission poster.  Therefore, calling her a troll would be inappropriate.  Calling her biased would be.  Anything bad for Scientology will further her cause, so she might not object to some script kiddies breaking some eggs to make an omelette she'd enjoy.  As someone who shares her bias, I can understand.

                        As for Anonymous, they're a bunch of trolls, hackers, and pirates who have decided to go on a mission.  However, it might just be the troll (attention-seeking deception) of the year.  I give out awards for that--merit awards.

                        by Neon Vincent on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:07:55 PM PDT

                        •  It's like this, Neon

                          People who only bring ad hominems and pointless illogic to a discussion are trolls. I was willing to let the excessive emotional ranting slide, but Xenubarb's insults did not go away despite a polite request, and I treated that accordingly.

                          The other trolls here are clearly just the usual mentally ill stalkers, netkopps and pompous hypocrites. It is not completely an outside possibility that some are even members of Anonymous, whose asses are still smarting from - either knowingly or unconsciously - having obviously been owned by the gubmint in this regard.

                          It's also typical of them to try and shoot the messenger, not that I really care. I'm still laughing too hard. It really couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of guys.

                          by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:20:37 PM PDT

                          •  You just earned your mojo from me today.

                            Good response.

                            by Neon Vincent on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:32:17 PM PDT

                          •  Um.

                            There was more "proof" presented in relation to the charge that there were WMD in Iraq than you've presented here.

                            You've put down nothing to address, but you do need to check your facts; the FBI is, in fact investigating.

                            I know that an investigation does not necessarily mean conviction(s), but it does put a hole in your major factual point, to wit:

                            But what bothered me about this situation is that you have this group of hackers, et. al. rattling a serious sabre in the cult's direction, and the Department of Hopeless Insecurity isn't the least bit concerned.

                            As to the gubmint being worried about a film of someone taking down a dictator... isn't taking down a dictator what Bush has been puffing his chest about for years?  So, that charge doesn't hold water either, since it would be rather strange to take down an authoritarian dictator, support the overthrow of someone else you're calling a dictator "Chavez" and then freak out over someone making a movie about trying to kill a dictator.

                            Also, try this on for size: When they wanted to take John Kerry's religious credentials down a peg, did they go after the Catholic Church?  No, they co-opted it against Kerry through the lobbying of the  more conservative bishops.

                            Lastly, contrary to the media reports (which you shouldn't trust anyway), Anonymous is not a group of hackers; it's a self-identified group of people who are Internet users of widely varying backgrounds, skills, and interests.  Say it with me: there is no "hacker group" called Anonymous.

                            Be careful of sucking in garbage from the media just because the narrative you've put together in your head gives you the feeling of "ah-hah!"  That feeling, without years of intense, deliberate exposure to information and participation in its associated processes, is about as reliable as Chertoff's gut.

                            StealthBadger.net

                            by Stealthbadger on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:47:33 PM PDT

              •  Know what I take seriously?

                The fact that, not only will our own government refuse to act against Scientology fraud and crime, some of the idiot legislators actually endorse fraudulent, ineffective Scientology front group programs and waste public money on them.

                I find it's incredible that the FBI won't investigate. I find it odd that clear instances of perjury, witness tampering and making false complaints to law enforcement aren't looked into deeper.

                I am also amazed that Scientology extorted tax exemption from the IRS and nothing has been done about it, despite the story being pretty well known since the Wall Street Journal broke the tale of the IRS's "secret deal" with Scientology back in the early 90s.

                You accuse others of "not doing the math."
                Yet, not only are you focused on the wrong target, you've managed to at 2+2 and come up with "cheese."

                by xenubarb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:30:52 AM PDT

                •  The question is not whether I know

                  it's whether I care.

                  So far, you haven't given me much reason to, and I won't if you continue to insult me.

                  This diary is not a defense of Scientology.

                  It's an examination of how selected groups are being allowed and even encouraged to break the law while others are harassed based on their levels of support and agreement (or lack thereof) for/with the Bush regime.

                  by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:37:15 AM PDT

      •  Wow, You're Really Chopping At That One With

        Occam's Battle-Axe, aren't you?

        Can you not think of a simpler and thus more probable explanation?  

        by karateexplosions on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:09:44 PM PDT

        •  Evidently

          you can't, either.

          by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:22:40 PM PDT

•  Anonymous' previous big score

  here.

  by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:44:31 AM PDT

  •  Untrue and misleading.

    Your statement has a limited truth to it, kind of like  you can say that the destruction at the hands of Timothy McVeigh was the last big score of that scary group of people known as "people who happen to be purchasers of both fertilizer and diesel oil."  Going as far as your claim in this comment, however, and you're... I have no clue what you're doing.  It makes my head hurt, though.

    StealthBadger.net

    by Stealthbadger on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:53:58 PM PDT

    •  :)

      Thanks for that, it's 2 am, I got up to use the little boy's room and have a smoke, and in my somnabulent haze, you had me completely mystified for a second there!!!
      lol

      by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:11:00 PM PDT

  •  OH WAIT

    Apologies!

    I understand what you mean now.  I thought you were saying that they had backed Hal Turner.

    StealthBadger.net

    by Stealthbadger on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:57:28 PM PDT

    •  WOOPS

      see what I mean?
      I'm not EVEN awake.
      My previous reply was meant for THIS comment!
      I'm goin back to bed.....arg

      by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:11:58 PM PDT

  •  Here's another one.

    Jake Brahm.

    Not to mention one of Anonymous' favorite sports - trolling for pedophiles.  XD

    StealthBadger.net

    by Stealthbadger on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:58:57 PM PDT

•  First they came for the Scientologists

  ...and then things were so much better we all breathed a sigh of relief.

  Scientology's comeuppance is overdue.  Ask Lisa McPherson.  Or any of dozens more.

  by Randomfactor on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:50:26 AM PDT

  •  Well, not for nothin' but

    I can't see how the world is served for the worse by the release of this movie, whatever other weirdnesses Scientology might be guilty of regardless.

    by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:02:27 AM PDT

  •  You can't

    She's dead.

    Yet, her death, which almost went unnoticed, exposed a lot of things Scientology wanted to keep hidden.
    And here is the statement from David Miscavige, the head of Scientology and, according to Tom Cruise, one of the most intelligent, compassionate men he's ever met.

    "She died. People die."
    --David Miscavige

    Most people don't die after being held against their will for 17 days, tied to a bed, force fed drugs, charged for the privilege of the experience until they expire from dehydration.

    Funny thing about the ME in the case. She first diagnosed cause of death as dehydration. Then she abruptly switched to Scientology's preferred version, quit her job and disappeared. Poof!

    Funny how shit like that happens when Scientology's involved.

    by xenubarb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:44:27 AM PDT

•  I think you're reaching

  There are plenty of good reasons to go after Scientology, and thinks to its penchant for celebrity, it's a much higher profile target than the Moonies.

  I am shocked that no one really goes after the Moonies anymore.

  by nightsweat on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:51:52 AM PDT

  •  Do tell

    There are plenty of good reasons to go after Scientology

    For instance...?

    and thinks to its penchant for celebrity, it's a much higher profile target than the Moonies.

    The Moonies are quite deliberately low profile and operate behind myriad innocuous-sounding front organizations. The organization is filthy rich and well connected to the rest of the corporate and governmental religious right infrastructure. I fail to see how that makes them less of concern if one intends to deal with "dangerous" cults.

    I am shocked that no one really goes after the Moonies anymore.

    I am much less so. There's only two things that talk in Washington these days - money and power, and the Unification Church has plenty of both.

    by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:57:12 AM PDT

    •  For instance:

      The exploitation of their members for financial gain.  You can't even find out the basic tenets of the religion without paying them thousands of dollars.

      The aggressive harassment of former members by the church.

      The fraud they commit by using a simple galvinometer to detect spooks in your head.

      The death of Lisa McPherson.

      The push against science and psychiatry.

      There's lots to loathe.  You can read more at Operation Clambake: http://www.xenu.net/

      by nightsweat on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:09:12 AM PDT

      •  While I am not going to argue

        with their established history, I still fail to see how this makes them a more "correct" target for harassment than the Moonies, who are known to have done many of the same things.

        The ONLY difference is that the US government condones one cult but not the other.

        And the Valkyrie movie is clearly a primary reason why. Unlike the Unification Church, the Church of Scientology is not in lockstep with the Christian right-wing corporate Bush machine.

        It's essentially the same behavior our government engages in with third world puppet dictators. The right wing will rail against Castro and Chavez forever, while turning a simultaneous blind eye to the atrocities of Pakistan's Musharrif and Columbia's Uribe. And of course, everybody is quick to claim that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are/were dirtbags, and just as quick to forget when they used to be OUR dirtbags.

        by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:18:55 AM PDT

        •  I'm not saying Moonies shouldn't be challenged

          I absolutely think they should be.  There's a distinction between religious freedom and exploitation, and those groups that violate that distinction deserve scorn and derision.

          As for the movie - Valkyrie is a nothing.  A movie about von Stauffenburg will probably do moderate business at best. Do you remember the 1990 "Plot to Kill Hitler"?  Didn't think so.  It covered the same material.

          And who is the movie supposed to hurt? Nazis? I think their image is pretty well shot to hell already.

          by nightsweat on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:26:58 AM PDT

          •  Valkyrie has not been released yet

            and yet you are willing to prejudge it's possible effects.

            Of course, there certainly seem to be some people out there who want to see to it that the film never sees the light of day.

            by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:31:42 AM PDT

            •  So let me get this straight -

              You think that the government is aiding a DDOS attack on Scientology to do what exactly to the release of Valkyrie?  Stop it?  How would attacks on Scientology stop UA from releasing the movie?  It's already shot, in post-production, and it's the priority one release from UA in 2008.

              Making Tom Cruise look like a fool might hurt the gross, but he's done a really good job of that himself over the last few years.

              And yeah, I'm prejudging the effects of Valkyrie because I'm a movie buff who's watched the effects of movies and their impact for over 40 years.  This ain't "JFK".

              Tom Cruise is only a minority holder in UA.  MGM owns the majority interest in the studio.  Valkyrie will be in theaters in October 2008, even if L. Ron Hubbard himself comes back to life and tells UA not to release it.

              I'm sorry, you're chasing a wild hare here.

              by nightsweat on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:39:32 AM PDT

              •  Not sure that's possible, but I'll try

                I'm not sure how attacking Scientology would interfere with getting the movie to the theaters, since I'm not sure how that process works - but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that hitting the organization in the pocket is designed to at least punish them for it, if not interfere with it's release.

                I'm not chasing a wild hare. I might be if I saw Anonymous being encouraged to also harass the Unification Church - or if I saw them being seriously prosecuted for illegal acts against the Church of Scientology.

                Neither of those two things are happening.

                by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:44:49 AM PDT

                •  No sequitur

                  Why would Anonymous need to attack everyone at once?  They/he/she picked a target and went after it.  In fact, going after the Moonies at the same time would diminish the effectiveness of the first DDOS attack by splitting the botnet.  No?

                  As for punishment, try being the RIAA or MPAA's webmaster.

                  by nightsweat on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:54:01 PM PDT

            •  Why not?

              Valkyrie has not been released yet (0 / 0)

              and yet you are willing to prejudge it's possible effects.

              You are. So why shouldn't nightsweat?

              Oh, and would you mind not tossing around the words "scientific experiment" quite so much? I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

              by musing85 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:08:48 PM PDT

        •  The Scientologists have acted in ways...

          ...that will disrupt Anonymous's and other groups' ideas of "fun."  They have also been enemies of legitimate free speech as well, as the Co$ has a long history of suppressing speech critical of them on the Internet.  The Moonies and other authoritarian organizations do not have that same high-profile history of SLAPPs and other tactics against "suppressive persons" who are "fair game."  Therefore, I'm not surprised that they have become the target of a bunch of anarchists who want to test the absolute limits of free speech on the Tubes.

          In the interest of full disclosure, I'm the nominal leader of a group that has no use for Scientology.  We've (there is no we, just like there is no Cabal) have given them the following awards.

          Church of Scientology

          Busted Urinal Award
          George Armstrong Custer "Kicked @$$" Award
          72 Raisins "Crackpot Religion" Award

          Here are the award descriptions.

          Busted Urinal Award

          The reward for the Lamest of the Lame on Usenet. One who clogs and stinks up the joint like a busted urinal, you could say.

          George Armstrong Custer "Kicked @$$" Award

          Given to those brave, inspiring crusaders who will keep up a lost lunatic cause despite all odds, even after the enemy has won, set up their own superpower in their midst and are chugging Guinness in a Kook-free world scenario.

          72 Raisins "Crackpot Religion" Award

          Name says it all, functions the same way as VVF (meaning the religion need not even be meant to be real, so long as it's good crackpot theology).

          The group's opinion of Scientology is quite clear.

          On the other hand, Anonymous might get the following award, should their campaign make it to USENET.

          Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker

          The Hook Line & Sinker (HL&S) is a different breed of award, a reward for the best, most inspired trolls on Usenet. Talent at wily yet ultimately harmless manipulation is worthy of public recognition; it gets laws passed all the time. Named in memory of the Usenet troll who rose so far as to successfully troll the American media into reporting his theory that the Navy shot down TWA Flight 800.

          Note that the awards to Co$ are for kookery and bad behavior.   The one Anonymous might get is for merit.

          by Neon Vincent on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:30:38 PM PDT

•  Another true story of government manipulation

  of the masses here.

  I have less love for Scientology than most, as I have a brother who is a Scientologist and have seen it's effect on our family, but I agree that we need to stand up against wrongdoing, regardless of the target.  Once "Anonymous" develops the needed skills to "take down" Scientology, will they be satisfied with that, or move on to MoveOn, or the Catholic Church, or the League of Women Voters or {name your favorite organization here}?

  by Lujane on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:02:28 AM PDT

  •  Exactly.

    When you have a bunch of fucktards who only want to get off on hurting someone - ANYONE - and they're told they will be allowed to get away with it, what you have are tomorrow's Brownshirts.

    by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:04:09 AM PDT

  •  they will probably

    go back to trolling conservative christian boards and other harmless fun.

    they have weird morals, but would probably leave move on and liberal organizations well enough alone, because we aren't foaming at the mouth morons, and use things like facts and research. they respect that.

    by Dude1701 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:49:32 AM PDT

  •  Another omnipotent group bent on my destruction?

    Gosh, it's getting so hard to keep them straight.  And all of them so irresistably powerful.  

    I think it's time to curl up with a good ol' 9/11 CT diary.  These conjure up safer, happier, saner times.

    by Quicklund on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:55:24 AM PDT

    •  You just do that.

      Obviously there's nothing to fear here.

      A group making a movie that obviously draws parallels between the German and American fascist agendas, that is being targeted for condoned harassment outside the law is just boys being boys on t3h 1nt4rw3bz.

      Go back to sleep.

      by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:04:59 AM PDT

      •  Gonna walk the dogs instead

        Much more productive than titling at halucinations.  Toodles!

        by Quicklund on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:34:45 AM PDT

        •  Don't forget your scooper

          You've left enough shit laying around as it is.

          by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:38:23 AM PDT

•  The Moonies and Scientologists work togethrer

  on anti-drug crusades.

  by ben masel on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:03:53 AM PDT

•  Sorry

  Anonymous never said they wanted me dead.
  Scientology did.
  If I have to choose sides.....

  by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:20:40 AM PDT

  •  You seem to still be around

    to do so. Scientology must not be very good at carrying out it's death threats. Not that you have any credibility issues or monopoly on receiving death threats from people who evidently don't have the wherewithal to carry them out, mind you.

    by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:33:38 AM PDT

    •  Scientology HAS killed.

      Do your homework.
      Anonymous has not.

      by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:36:27 AM PDT

      •  You have

        no proof of the second statement.

        I've done what homework I need to.

        You're still alive. You'll pardon me if I take your claims that they threatened you with death with a grain of salt.

        by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:47:02 AM PDT

        •  I'm not gonna

          get into a pissing contest with you, randgrithr.
          Scientology has made generic statements that basically mean SPs (anyone who cannot be converted) should be killed.
          As far as the second statement, this is AMERICA, toots.
          I don't HAVE to prove they haven't killed anyone.
          If you disagree with that, it is incumbent upon YOU to prove their guilt.

          by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:50:25 AM PDT

          •  Erm...

            I don't HAVE to prove they haven't killed anyone.
            If you disagree with that, it is incumbent upon YOU to prove their guilt.

            This statement makes absolutely no sense.

            You are the one concerned with their guilt. The burden of proof is on you.

            by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:54:34 AM PDT

            •  Wires crossed?

              By "second staement", I thought you meant:

              Anonymous has not.

              by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:25:12 AM PDT

              •  I'd like to see your proof of that

                as it assumes you know the identity of everyone in Anonymous and everything they've done for their entire adult lifetime.

                There's no way you can prove that statement.

                by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:32:03 AM PDT

                •  Ridiculous.

                  Again, if you wish to assert Anonymous has killed, it is incumbent upon YOU to offer evidence to that effect.
                  I have not killed, either.
                  Are you going to ask me to prove THAT to you?

                  by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:46:24 AM PDT

                  •  You said "Anonymous has not killed"

                    but you can't prove it.

                    I therefore suggest you remove that statement from the equation. It serves no purpose, and is only a distraction from the main argument.

                    by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:55:06 AM PDT

                    •  Scientology

                      is documented as being responsible for several deaths.
                      Anonymous is not.
                      Happy now?
                      And again: killing is a crime, and if you dispute the statement, the burden of proof is on YOU.
                      Here in America, it's like that, hun.

                      by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:10:17 AM PDT

                      •  Um... no.

                        What documentation exists on the actions of Anonymous is sketchy at best. Most of it is self generated and self aggrandizing, but I think even they are not so stupid that they are going to document murders any more than the NSA, CIA, FBI or Blackwater plan to document what murders they've committed or seen committed on their watch.

                        You simply can't compare the two organizations on that scale. It doesn't work. The law has at least partially been applied to one group and obviously does not apply to the other. Anonymous is by it's very own admission operating outside the law. That, in fact, is a fundamental part of the problem.

                        by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:18:23 AM PDT

                        •  You evade the question.

                          If you wish to contest my assertion that Anonymous is not responsible for the deaths of human beings, it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence to that effect.

                          by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:50:18 AM PDT

                          •  No. I consider the question

                            completely irrelevant.

                            by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:01:55 AM PDT

                            •  You would

                              because it is inconvenient to your narrative.

                              by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:27:01 AM PDT

                              •  No, because it makes no sense.

                                How can you pretend to speak for a group of unnumbered people calling itself Anonymous and operating outside of the law, and expect to be believed when you say they've never killed anyone?

                                How do you know none of them are government agents who very well may HAVE killed someone?

                                Or ex-military? Or law enforcement?

                                Cut it out with the red herrings already. If this is all you can quibble about, stop wasting my time.

                                by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:34:15 AM PDT

                                •  Oh, Jesus H. CHRIST.

                                  Lulz. Nothing but lulz.
                                  My bad for taking you at all seriously.

                                  

                                  by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:50:28 AM PDT

                                  •  Meh.

                                    Another troll. Bored now. Take your worthless shit to someone who cares.

                                    by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:58:53 AM PDT

                                    •  I'm a troll, huh?

                                      I've been around here nearly twice as long as you have, child.
                                      You should know better than to fling appellations like that indiscriminately.
                                      You diminish yourself.
                                      Here.
                                      Work on your technique.

                                      

                                      by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:06:35 PM PDT

                                      •  mmm...waste of time, IMO...

                                        

                                        by condoleaser on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:10:25 PM PDT

                                        •  Did you get it yet?

                                          You're still here, so guess not.

                                          by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:12:45 PM PDT

                                      •  Meh.

                                        I don't care how long you've been here. Your contribution to this diary speaks for itself. Insults, ad hominems and pointless arguments.

                                        You can't deal with hearing what you don't want to hear, and that is SO not my problem. I suggest you take your own advice.

                                        by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:12:08 PM PDT

                                        •  You're the one slinging wild ass CT here

                                          and trying to pass it off as fact.
                                          Not me.

                                          by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:34:32 PM PDT

                                          •  is that "wild-ass CT" or "wild ass-CT...?"

                                            I think it's teh latter...

                                            by condoleaser on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:47:34 PM PDT

                                            •  It's neither,

                                              but don't let any facts get in your way or anything.

                                              by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:23:06 PM PDT

                                          •  They are clear, simple facts

                                            Repeating that they are not gets you nowhere.

                                            by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:24:33 PM PDT

                                      •  these infantile antics of...

                                        * the far-too-young-to-know

                                        OR

                                        * the zombie

                                        
                                        OR

                                        * the sockpuppet

                                        (no matter)
                                        just plain out bore the living shit out of me.

                                        we can only hope this person reads the book you gave them.

                                        i doubt it, but i gotta have hope...

                                        love the image btw...

                                        may i liberate it and make it a bit larger?

                                        _______________

                                        it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                                        -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                                        by dadanation on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:12:11 AM PDT

                        •  Kestrel is right.

                          Lisa MacPherson.

                          And the reason that the documentation on Anonymous is sketchy at best, is that the border defining such a group is, well, sketchy, at best.

                          StealthBadger.net

                          by Stealthbadger on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:56:18 PM PDT

                    •  can you prove

                      that you never killed anyone?

                      or any other negative...?

                      didn't think so

                      by condoleaser on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:22:05 PM PDT

            •  Scientology has killed.

              Try this

              and evaluate these claims.

              by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:28:45 AM PDT

              •  I am not arguing that

                Nor did I infer that they should be beyond the rule of law.

                It's simply that NO organization should be beyond the rule of law.

                If what you have to do to advance your agenda is resort to harassment by a group of relatively clueless, angry internet goons, what's happening is not the rule of law and needs to be looked at in that light.

                by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:35:41 AM PDT

                •  What *I* have to do?

                  MY agenda?

                  by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:47:51 AM PDT

                  •  Oh geez

                    The "you" was metaphorical. The primary problem here is not the actions of Anonymous (or even of the two cults) but the actions (and inactions) of the Bush regime.

                    Unless of course you ARE involved, in which case, hey, nice shoes.

                    by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:52:37 AM PDT

                    •  Nice shoes?

                      That's only half a sentence, you know.....

                      by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:09:02 AM PDT

                      •  If you can't figure it out

                        I'm not going to bother. Later.

                        by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:12:30 AM PDT

            •  Oh, here's another

              one you ought to look at.

              by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:29:51 AM PDT

•  Not everything in life is a Government Plot

  The evidece submitted for review boils down to this:

  >A group of hackers is apparantly harassing Scientlogy.

  >A movie backed by Scientology money is coming out soon.

  Conclusion?  It's a Government Plot.  

  Say what?  

  by Quicklund on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:24:06 AM PDT

  •  You left out the part

    Where the movie is about an assassination attempt on an insane fascist dictator, and the government we currently had is led by... do I have to finish it for you?

    by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:27:30 AM PDT

    •  By the time the movie comes out, Bush wil

      will nearly be out of office. Doubt that it will be seen as a threat to him ---

      by Wee Mama on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:51:40 AM PDT

      •  You forget...

        About when do you suppose the Bush administration plans to schedule the attack on Iran?

        by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:55:19 AM PDT

    •  Not really

      Actually, I think there is a policy against these sort of diaries.

      by Quicklund on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:04:48 AM PDT

      •  Don't think so.

        The facts are as clear as any scientific experiment.

        You have a control group and an experimental group.

        An action is occurring on the experimental group.

        The publicly given reasons for the action must be false because those reasons fully apply to both groups.

        The only difference between the control and experimental groups is the level of support and approval the Bush administration has or does not have for them.

        It's crystal clear, really. No theory here at all. Just facts.

        by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:45:42 AM PDT

        •  This is a CT Diary - Please delete

          The rule for posting such diaries is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

          This diary offers zero evidence.  It offers some deranged linkage through a series of events even the diarist is unable to explain.  

          Please delete this diary.  

          by Quicklund on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:04:45 AM PDT

          •  This is not a CT diary, and I am not deleting it.

            The facts are as clear as any scientific experiment.

            You have a control group and an experimental group.

            An action is occurring on the experimental group.

            The publicly given reasons for the action must be false because those reasons fully apply to both groups.

            The only difference between the control and experimental groups is the level of support and approval the Bush administration has or does not have for them.

            It's crystal clear, really. No theory here at all. Just facts.

            It's essentially the same behavior our government engages in with third world puppet dictators. The right wing will rail against Castro and Chavez forever, while turning a simultaneous blind eye to the atrocities of Pakistan's Musharrif and Columbia's Uribe. And of course, everybody is quick to claim that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are/were dirtbags, and just as quick to forget when they used to be OUR dirtbags.

            These are simple, factual observations. No theory. Facts.

            Get over it.

            by Randgrithr on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:10:21 AM PDT

            •  Of curse it is the very definition of a CT diary

              You yuorself admit your facts are not facts.  Please, do yourself a favor.