antimidas
2/15/2008 4:11:00 AM
barb <xenubarb@netscape.net> wrote in
news:fn5tj.660$0M3.93@newsfe17.lga:
> anonymousAltF4 wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 1:17 pm, TruthSetsYouFree <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host>
>> wrote:
>>> There are more than one Anonymous posting here. I'm sure you're all
>>> aware of that not all of them is part of the Anon "movement".
>>>
>>> Be very certain that some pretending to be part of the Anonymous
>>> "movement", yes even posting with Anon???? in their nick, in fact
>>> are working for OSA.
>>>
>>> The greatest danger for the Anon "movement" will for the foreseeable
>>> future be infiltration from OSA.
>>>
>>> One can not, and should not forget the fact that Scientology's OSA
>>> department is still considered to be an intelligence agency worthy
>>> of even some middle sized countries.
>>>
>>> Today OSA doesn't only "hire" Scientologists, but rather any PI
>>> willing to be bought for a price. Most in OSA today aren't Scn's,
>>> but mere Wogs.
>>>
>>> They will have no problems whatsoever talking about Xenu, the BT's,
>>> cursing at David Miscavige, Hubbard, Tom Cruise, or whoever and
>>> whatever. They have free hands doing and saying whatever is needed
>>> to infiltrate Anon, yes even picketing with Anon against their
>>> employer.
>>>
>>> Not keeping this in mind, and not always remembering this, will
>>> ultimately lead to some "critics" and Anon as a "movement" being
>>> infiltrated and badly hurt, if not totally destroyed.
>>>
>>> So, do NOT trust someone mailing or otherwise contacting you, just
>>> because he/she seems trustworthy. Do NOT give out information
>>> without first having thoroughly checked out the person in question.
>>>
>>> A good advice is to initially distrust any new person who contacts
>>> you. A good advice is to presume that it is OSA, until proven
>>> differently.
>>
>> Any new people that contact us? We tend to distrust anybody that
>> contacts us. If they can't say it on an open forum, then I'm not
>> going to listen to them in a private message or e-mail.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but the OSA is not a threat to anonymous. I agree that the
>> OSA is a threat to perhaps individual anonymous who expose
>> themselves. OSA is not a threat to anonymous itself.
>>
>> Anonymous cannot be infiltrated. There is nothing to infiltrate.
>> There are no secrets. There are no leaders. There are no meetings
>> (that are not open to everyone). There is no organization.
>>
>> Bring it on OSA
>
> Heck, there really aren't any members. Just a bunch of people online
> who agree this is a good thing to do and do it. Then disassemble into
> individual units and fade away until next time.
>
I am Antimidas and I am Anonymous. But I am not a member of any group.
I am acting on my own as is every other member of Anonymous. There is no
group - no adhesion. That is the part that CoS is missing out on. It
has them confused because they don't know how to deal with thousands of
adversaries. They can only attack one on one.
I speak for no one but myself. No member of Anonymous speaks for the
whole, just as the actions of one Anonymous are not the crimes of those
subscribing to the philosophy behind the group. They are the crimes of
the individual. We each maintain personal responsibility for our
actions.
I don't care if I am trusted or distrusted. My actions and words will
bear out where my sympathies lie. But anothers trust of me is not
important to my dedication to the cause. That I might be distrusted by
some will not cause me to drop a cause that I feel so strongly about. I
understand their distrust becaue of the harm done to them by the cult of
scientology. I would be just as distrustful. But that does not mean
that there cannot be any compatibility of ideals.
That in a nutshell is Anonymous.
Antimidas
Anonymous since January 2008