"Anonymous" Gives Westboro Baptist Church Ultimatum

[crushing]

http://www.wltx.com/news/national/a...Warn-Westboro-Baptist-Church-Stop-Now-or-Else

A group of hacktivists acting under the banner, "Anonymous," has warned a church with a controversial history that unspoken retribution will follow it continues its practice of inflammatory protests.

In an open letter to the Westboro Baptist Church, Anonymous has put the anti-gay, fundamentalist church on notice that "the damage incurred will be irreversible," and that "neither your institution nor your congregation will ever be able to fully recover."

http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=449

This could get very interesting. I'm not one generally for vigilantism, but part of me thinks this is full of win.

 

[ballen0351]

Hackers are one group of people I dont ever want mad at me. They can destroy you

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Anonymous. I love those guys.

They brought a number of corporations to their knees, and knocked the crap out of a mega cult. Phelps and his 20 or so losers should be easy pickings. I just feel sorry for anyone else on that server when they DDOS the **** out of his bigoted ***.

 

[granfire]

And there I was envisioning a lot of gay pr0n being broad cast over their broad band...

Certainly an occasion to have popcorn and beer handy...

 

[Omar B]

Who among us stands with Anon?

 

[Big Don]

Fred Phelps is 82, his days, and the nuttiness he leads, are numbered...
We really ought to stop referring to his group as the Westboro Baptist church and just call them the Phelps family.

 

[Flea]

I just have one thing to say and that's ... opcorn:

Well, maybe two things. :headbangin:

I don't support vigilantism either, but as their arbitrary tradition of pissing people off enters the third generation (!) I think some nonviolent payback is fair game. And long overdue.

 

[Cryozombie]

After the mess these guys made of HBGary I'd sure as hell not wanna piss in their coffee. Phelps is in trouble. LOL

 

[Makalakumu]

What can they really do? If they knock out their websites, the pack of *******s still remains. They just don't have a website. How about someone invite the Hells Angels to the next place they show up and make asses of themselves?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

What can they really do?

Project Chanology



20-30 Phelps supporters vs thousands of counter protesters, combined with a heavy heavy coordinated attack on all aspects of the Phelps activities... bleed them financially at the least, get them kicked off a few web hosts, etc.

 

[granfire]

What can they really do? If they knock out their websites, the pack of *******s still remains. They just don't have a website. How about someone invite the Hells Angels to the next place they show up and make asses of themselves?

Well, they are hackers...websites are kid's play...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Who among us stands with Anon?

Not me. I stand for the rule of law. I dislike Phelps immensely. I do not support thugs who engage in vigilante justice. Thugs are thugs, no matter how much their victims have it coming. Vigilantes should be locked up.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Not me. I stand for the rule of law. I dislike Phelps immensely. I do not support thugs who engage in vigilante justice. Thugs are thugs, no matter how much their victims have it coming. Vigilantes should be locked up.

Depends... they could make life Hell for the Phelps crew and still be withing the rule of law. Kinda like how they themselves harrass people at funerals etc. Only instead of being with a couple dozen, they'll be with a couple thousand. Or not.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Depends... they could make life Hell for the Phelps crew and still be withing the rule of law. Kinda like how they themselves harrass people at funerals etc. Only instead of being with a couple dozen, they'll be with a couple thousand. Or not.

If they do as they apparently have in the past, then it seems they'll launch denial-of-service attacks on Westboro's servers, try to hack in and steal private data, deface websites, and so on. But I suppose from your smiley you know that - and find it amusing?

It's interesting to me how many people who would ordinarily be against criminals are for them if they are vigilantes and if their victim is someone who is popularly hated. I find it sad. Actually, I find it disgusting, common, banal, and frankly a tad obscene. No balls, no courage, no respect for the society we built to respect the rights of all, even the most despised among us. Frankly, if we think the protection of the law doesn't belong to them, then we can't demand it for anyone.

We support the law, the rule of law, but we'll gladly turn our backs on it if we believe the ends justify the means. If that's true, we're only separated from savagery by a very thin veil. It's only as thick as our morals, which we are apparently willing to discard on if it serves our sense of outrage.

 

[Cryozombie]

we're only separated from savagery by a very thin veil. It's only as thick as our morals, which we are apparently willing to discard on if it serves our sense of outrage.

Did you forget, you are talking about Humans here Bill...

 

[Bruno@MT]

If they do as they apparently have in the past, then it seems they'll launch denial-of-service attacks on Westboro's servers, try to hack in and steal private data, deface websites, and so on. But I suppose from your smiley you know that - and find it amusing?

It's interesting to me how many people who would ordinarily be against criminals are for them if they are vigilantes and if their victim is someone who is popularly hated. I find it sad. Actually, I find it disgusting, common, banal, and frankly a tad obscene. No balls, no courage, no respect for the society we built to respect the rights of all, even the most despised among us. Frankly, if we think the protection of the law doesn't belong to them, then we can't demand it for anyone.

We support the law, the rule of law, but we'll gladly turn our backs on it if we believe the ends justify the means. If that's true, we're only separated from savagery by a very thin veil. It's only as thick as our morals, which we are apparently willing to discard on if it serves our sense of outrage.

No, the smiley was to denote that it may or may not happen.
I don't know much about Anon, but I have read several times that noone is really in charge, there is no core group, and the total result is the sum of random emergent behavior, depending on whether individuals actually do something.

The 'or not' was in reference to the 'thousands vs dozens'. I've read that of all the initiatives that are launched, some whither and die despite initial interest, while other minor things grow out to be an unanticipated stomp fest. Kinda like the Jesse Slaughter event.

There is really no telling if anything will happen or not, and on what scale.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Did you forget, you are talking about Humans here Bill...

Humans are unlike animals; we have the ability to behave contrary to our own selfish interests, to rise above the dictates of our genetic programming. Abusing this gift in order to see a disliked group persecuted outside the rule of law is not honorable and lacking in courage.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Humans are unlike animals; we have the ability to behave contrary to our own selfish interests, to rise above the dictates of our genetic programming. Abusing this gift in order to see a disliked group persecuted outside the rule of law is not honorable and lacking in courage.

Slightly off topic, but is it ok if we vote in the law we want based on our dislikes alone, and use that to beat people we don't like over the head with?

Like the laws against gay sex that apparently still exist, and which the GOP in Texas wanted to reinstate? These were laws that were created solely for the purpose of controlling the actions of a minority which does things the majority didn't like, without any proper justification.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Slightly off topic, but is it ok if we vote in the law we want based on our dislikes alone, and use that to beat people we don't like over the head with?

You mean, is it OK to have a society with laws created by the majority, either through elected representatives or directly by plebiscite? Yes, I think it's OK. Oh, you mean is it OK for people who have agendas to vote for those agendas? Yes, I think that's OK too. Oh, you mean is it OK for 'bad people' to vote for laws which punish 'good people'? I think I'd still have to say 'yes' unless you can offer me an alternative.

Like the laws against gay sex that apparently still exist, and which the GOP in Texas wanted to reinstate? These were laws that were created solely for the purpose of controlling the actions of a minority which does things the majority didn't like, without any proper justification.

What is the alternative to living in a society that is based on the rule of law? If the law is being misapplied, it is up to the citizens of Texas to put it to right.

In any case, yes, you are more than slightly off-topic. There's a bit of a difference between being against an unfair or discriminatory law and being for a group of lawless individuals who take retaliatory action against law-abiding but nasty & hateful people you don't personally care for.

But it's a nice attempt at deflection.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm all in favor of any lawful and legal means which any group uses against asshats like the Phelps.
I don't condone DOS or DDOS attacks.