







I.  What's in This Latest Leak?









The emails were sent in November 2010.












III.  Lots of Conspiracy, Little Meat












IV. What Do We Know?









Comments     Threshold


RE: losers
By spread on 3/14/2011 11:37:08 AM , Rating: 5
"Anonymous" = a bunch of teenage terrorists. I hope that as they get caught, they get sentenced to hard time in a federal prison, and not just a slap on the wrist.

Because they terrorize us with the truth and their investigative journalism.

Like uncovering the corruption of HBGary, Bank of America, Scientology... etc. All bad things, right?

RE: losers
By nafhan on 3/14/2011 11:56:52 AM , Rating: 2
So, if someone does something good they should be allowed to break the law at will? I'm going to say no... Even though I like the concept of Anonymous and I applaud some of the stuff that's been done by some of their members. That doesn't change my mind about whether or not illegal activities should be punished as proscribed by the legal system (it should).

Also, there was that article the other day about how they are planning to terrorize the families of US Service members. That and the numerous DoS attacks, could arguably be called terrorism....

RE: losers
By seraphim1982 on 3/14/2011 12:37:58 PM , Rating: 1
That is the MOST hypocritical post I've read in a while.

So you are saying if someone who breaks the law, in the name something good, is "more" wrong over a corporation that BLATANTLY breaks the law. This is the reason why America is crumbling economically.... White collar crimes go unattended, where as small blue collar crimes are putting everyday joes in jail (raising the stock of private jails and at the same time hindering the middle class). In the end, money is being funneled from what's left of the middle class to the corporate elite in America.

Tell me, the where is the line between civil unrest / terrorism? If you read any news you'd realize that they are just reacting to the US government actions. Many of DDos attacks targeted websites, but DID NOT impact any business of these sites.

Plans of terrorizing families of US Service members is NO different, than officials in the US government calling for the assassination of Julian Assange on live TV or the treatment of Bradley Manning. One is terror, which a BROAD word in today's media, one is a direct threat of death....threat of death is by far worse.

RE: losers
By lamerz4391 on 3/14/2011 12:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
So basically what you are saying is that you are OK with the threats of violence against military folks and their families? Nice guy.

Also, there is no argument that there was massive corruption in the financial industry. Just look at Angelo Mozilo. But this guy offered no PROOF in THIS INSTANCE that there was law breaking. Mick got it right in saying that in Part 2 there better be more meat, otherwise this looks like sour grapes.

RE: losers
By The Raven on 3/14/2011 3:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
As I understand it they are not making threats of physical violence. I sounds like harassment to me but what do I know. Just if I were them, I would start changing pass words and such to passphrases if you get my drift ;-|

RE: losers
By nafhan on 3/14/2011 3:48:01 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, you're bringing up stuff I didn't say and attributing it to me... I said that someone who breaks the law should be held accountable for it. Both groups you mention (some members of Anonymous and "teh-big-ebil-corporations-that-are-conspiring-agai nst-us-all-and-must-be-destroyed") may fall into that group. I believe there are times and places where breaking the law is ethically or morally sound and advisable (including some of the things Anonymous has done). However, morally sound and legal are not the same thing, and you seem to be confusing the two.

You can't draw a line between civil unrest and terrorism because they aren't mutually exclusive, so it's not a valid question. An action taken could be one, both, or neither.

My observation is that when the term terrorist is used, it's generally used correctly, and misuse of the term is often by omission and replacement by a euphemism (i.e. those freedom fighters just blew up a bunch of old ladies!).

It sounds like your definition of terrorist would be something along the lines of "uses terror to accomplish goals, but the terror has to be arbitrary evil as defined and set forth by seraphim1982." Hmmm...

RE: losers
By Uncle on 3/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: losers


RE: losers
By JakLee on 3/14/2011 7:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
But responding in kind only puts you in the same moral boat. THAT more than anything I believe is the current failing of America. It isn't that we don't do the right thing, or do something we think is right; it's that we also do the wrong things, sometimes for the right reasons.

It should be our goal to morally lead from the front, work within the law to change things. Isn't that what the whole Declaration of Independence was about - things were unfair and we had no redress through the law - so we quit Britain and started our game without them. And our game was based on new rules designed to (hopefully) give everyone fair redress through the law (and no taxation without representation).

So yeah, the "bad guys" and "evil corporations" may be breaking the law all willy nilly. But they will be caught, they will be punished. It is not always fair, but it is RIGHT. We expect the police to follow the law, even when it makes their jobs infinately more difficult, and we judge them harshly when they take shortcuts over peoples rights. So too we need expect these companies to follow the laws, and judge them harshly when they chose not to. But that does not give us the right to go "apocolypse now" on them.

I really want to support wikileaks as an idea, but can't really stomach the tactics they, and ANON are using. Anyone who threatens military families with blanket harrassment (or worse?) are on my DNG list. I was OK with their "online protests" against some corporations but to attack military families just puts them into a position of lame to me.

So I guess what I am saying: use the law first; only when that fails are "other" methods appropriate. However, if you must resort to "other methods", take the moral high road or you just as much of scum as those you fight against.

RE: losers
By Hyperion1400 on 3/14/2011 10:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes, the rules really are made to be broken.

