"Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology"

January 23, 2008

The Internet-based group "Anonymous" has released statements on YouTube and via a press release, outlining what they call a "War on Scientology". Church of Scientology related websites, such as religiousfreedomwatch.org have been removed due to a suspected distributed denial-of-service-attack (DDoS) by a group calling themselves "Anonymous". On Friday, the same group allegedly brought down Scientology's main website, scientology.org, which was available sporadically throughout the weekend.

Several websites relating to the Church of Scientology have been slowed down, brought to a complete halt or seemingly removed from the Internet completely in an attack which seems to be continuous. The scientology.org site was back online briefly on Monday, and is currently loading slowly.

On Monday, the group released a video titled: "Message to Scientology" on YouTube concerning their intentions to attack the Church of Scientology. A robotic voice on the video begins with "Hello leaders of Scientology. We are Anonymous," and continues by explaining their motivations: "Over the years we have been watching you, your campaigns of misinformation, your suppression of dissent and your litigious nature. All of these things have caught our eye. With the leakage of your latest propaganda video into mainstream circulation the extent of your malign influence over those who have come to trust you as leaders has been made clear to us. Anonymous has therefore decided that your organisation should be destroyed." The message goes on to state that the group intends to "expel Scientology from the Internet". As of Wednesday, the video had been viewed 370,347 times, favorited 2,473 times, and is currently YouTube's top third video of the day.

The "Message to Scientology" video was highlighted as the "YouTube Video of the Week" by The Michigan Daily. Commenting on the video, the piece states "if this video is any indication, it seems like the assailants mean business". In a blog post on USA Today's website, Jess Zielinski wrote that it was "not a shock that hackers hold a grudge against Scientology," and in a followup post on another USA Today blog, Angela Gunn wrote that "those of us who remember ... the adventures of Operation Clambake are fascinated to see this kind of thing flare up again". Blogging for Wired magazine, Ryan Singel wrote about the incident in a piece on Wednesay titled "War Breaks Out Between Hackers and Scientology -- There Can Be Only One". Singel wrote that the Project Chanology wiki page "directs Anonymous members to download and use denial of service software, make prank calls, host Scientology documents the Church considers proprietary, and fax endless loops of black pages to the Church's fax machines to waste ink". According to Wired, "The Church of Scientology did not immediately respond to a call for comment".

The viewpoints expressed in the video are echoed on the "Project Chanology" website, an open source of information and direction for those within Anonymous, which talks of tactics such as blackfaxing and prank calling alongside other "real-life" methods of attack. The satirical website Encyclopedia Dramatica also has a similar page devoted to "Project Chanology".

"Anonymous" released a statement on Monday in the form of a press release, "Internet Group Anonymous Declares "War on Scientology": "Anonymous" are fighting the Church of Scientology and the Religious Technology Center". In the statement, the group explained their goal as safeguarding the right to freedom of speech "A spokesperson said that the group's goals include bringing an end to the financial exploitation of Church members and protecting the right to free speech, a right which they claim was consistently violated by the Church of Scientology in pursuit of its opponents." The press release also claimed that the Church of Scientology misused copyright and trademark law in order to remove criticism from websites including Digg and YouTube. The statement goes on to assert that the attacks from the group "will continue until the Church of Scientology reacts, at which point they will change strategy".

The attack was reportedly motivated by the Church of Scientology's attempts to remove a promotional video featuring Scientologist Tom Cruise from YouTube. After the Church of Scientology lodged a copyright infringement complaint with YouTube, the site took down the video. The Tom Cruise video is still available on Gawker.com, which has stated it will not remove the video "It's newsworthy, and we will not be removing it."

Gawker.com discussed the actions of the "Anonymous" group, in a post on Monday titled "Scientology vs. the Internet: Why Kids On The Internet Are Scientology's Most Powerful Enemy". Gawker.com briefly outlined actions of other anonymous users critical of Scientology, including actions taken in the past by users of YouTube, Digg, and YTMND "This isn't the only group of Internet users unafraid of the intimidating cult; a whole range of sites has turned the Church into a mockery by doing what mainstream celebrity-coverage outlets wouldn't dare."

A poster on the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology (a.r.s.) was critical of the actions by the "Anonymous" group. In a post titled "Open Letter to Anonymous" Jeff Jacobsen, webmaster of lisamcpherson.org, posting as "cultxpt" wrote that "It's understandable that people get upset over the things the Church of Scientology has done online and off", pointing out that the Church of Scientology had "tried to shut down a.r.s.", and "spam our newsgroup to this day". In 1999 "sporgery", a form of nonsensical spam tactic, was used as an attempt to disrupt discussion on the newsgroup. Previously in 1995 Helena Kobrin, an attorney for the Church of Scientology, attempted to remove the a.r.s. group from Usenet. Kobrin sent a rmgroup message which stated: "We have requested that the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup be removed from all sites". This later led to a declaration of war by the hacker group Cult of the Dead Cow, and an increase in popularity of the a.r.s site. This initial conflict came to be known as "Scientology versus the Internet".

The post from Jacobsen went on to criticize the actions of the "Anonymous" group, stating: "We're supposed to be the good people," and stated that contrary to the Anonymous group's tactics, "Our weapons as critics are reason, evidence, argument, and free speech".

On Tuesday, the founder of Operation Clambake, a non-profit organization and website critical of Scientology based in Stavanger, Norway, released a statement about the attacks by "Anonymous". Andreas Heldal-Lund was critical of the "Anonymous" groups actions, stating: "The author of Operation Clambake does not condone such activity. Attacking Scientology like that will just make them play the religious persecution card. They will use it to defend their own counter actions when they try to shatter criticism and crush critics without mercy." Heldal-Lund went on to emphasize the right of all people and organizations to freedom of speech - including the Church of Scientology: "Freedom of speech means we need to allow all to speak - including those we strongly disagree with. I am of the opinion that the Church of Scientology is a criminal organisation and a cult which is designed by its delusional founder to abuse people. I am still committed to fight for their right to speak their opinion."

"We're enforcing Freedom of Speech, so SHUT THE ##### UP SCIENTOLOGY!"

Everyone says Schentology is crazy, yet not a single one of you have ever given me a reason.

I know of one, check it out, I think it's called "Christianity".

Phyllis Pamblewene 08/01/26(Sat)21:12 No.152006 [Reply]

get a life you hackers you think ur big and bad try actually doing something in the real world instead of sitting on your fat asses on the internet thinking ur big shots ##### you ok you are nothing never will be nothing scientology owns you

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

There are still Christianity related deaths.

The crimes committed by Christianity as a whole in the last fifty years pale in comparison to what Scientology has done.

We understand that there are certain groups of people who hate us, and while we hope they will see the light

Always acting as if you're better than non Christian people.

If you cannot find both religions to be equally ridiculous and with their faults then I personally find anything you post regarding religion in general to be nonsense. This is truly the folly of our country. How you could attempt to even simplify the religions and compare them as " oh my Scientology is worse " is utter nonsense.

THE WHITE MAN'S GOTTA GOD. Even though it was stolen from those you hate so much in a certain area in the middle east.

Where is like... The highest number of NON religious people located? Get me out, now.

I apologize that I've seemed that way. I was unaware there was a difference in the first place between people who believed different things; just the way they express them.

Anyway, on topic, I don't really have to much to say about this whole war thing >.>.

I'd say the reason you're no doubt going to get an off topic bashing is because of the comment that:

"Atheists just kind of make me sad; radical Christians make me angry because they probably do quite a bit of contributing to the reasons why all you atheists out there are atheists in the first place."

Atheists make you sad? Comes across as patronising. One of the major reasons Atheism flourishes is due to radical Christianity in all its forms? Basically Atheism is not a legitimate view or one born out of deep, personal soul searching or world experience, it's actually directly tied to radical sects and factions of your percieved legitimate religion. In one simple comment you are condescending, imply that Atheism is a nutty belief born of a nutty expression of your beliefs and manage to make Christianity sound superior because in your view Atheism is intrinsically tied to it.

Very few atheists I have met have actually given me a reason why they are atheists. I get all sorts of reasons why they're not Christians, most of which are tied to the Christian right being bigoted and hypocritical and to the Bible being self-contradictory. My assumption, then, which I maybe should not have made, was that atheism was fueled in part in many people by a dislike of Christianity. I understand that there are other reasons; I've just never seen them given.

I'm not quite sure what you're expectations are. It seems that they are giving you perfectly capable answers, you just have a problem dealing with them. For many, if not all, to experience the jump from belief to lack thereof, they must experience the former. Therefore many Atheists are raised in homes where religion, faith and belief played a part, however small. They will live and experience religion before identifying which areas of said religion seem ring hollow or do not sit well with their personal belief system, and then consequently make the jump from belief in a deity to belief such a being does not exist.

Now applying the above to your example, I'm suprised you don't acknowledge the validity of some Atheist reasoning. I'm not asking you to accept this line of thinking, simply acknowledge that it does exist and is comprised of sound reasoning. In your examples the Atheists rejected Christianity for a variety of reasons. You provide the following two: Problems with the man-made organisation of Christianity (specifically relating to the attitudes of Christians in relation to politics, and using politics as a platform to further religious belief) and problems with hypocritical members of the Christian church; and the self contradictory nature of a book claimed to be divinely inspired. Let's go through these three reasons in turn.

1) Matthew 22:21, John 18:36, Acts 5:29. Your mileage may vary, but I interpret these verses as strong advocation for the seperation between Church and State. Now after reading these verses, and viewing the attitudes of the more prominent and outspoken Christians within your political system, could you not see how someone could be disgruntled or jaded? The Bible tells you to preach, and instead some Christians try to force their beliefs on your country. Could this blatant hypocrisy not lead someone to question the divine nature of Christianity, and why your god allows men to corrupt what is apparently holy scripture for material gain?

2) I won't go in to the self-contradiction argument. There are far too many examples, as well as far too many versions of the Bible itself to fully wrangle this one out. One side argues A, the other side argues B and we get nowhere. However the fact these arguments even take place is a sign to some that perhaps the Bible is the work of various men, and not the work of a god.

Atheism can be succinctly described as the belief there is no God, or perhaps more broadly to encompass more than just Christianity, the disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. To believe there is no God, you must first understand the belief in God. Anything else is simply ignorant. You must experience a belief system, or at the very least research them, before you can reject or augment its tenents to match your own personal beliefs.

In actuality this is just the reverse of the many reasons people provide for their belief in Christianity, to use your example. "The world seems hopeless without Christianity." "People have always believed in God and morals." "Look around, the world needs a designer." I could easily dismiss these commonly provided reasons as invalid because they rely on reasons outside of Christianity itself, some even bordering on reasons why the speaker is not Atheist.

Religion, belief and lack thereof is a complex issue, with each facet so closely stitched together. To define light, you have to define dark and vice versa. There's no need to question beliefs, because in the end we all have the same answer. Why are you Christian? Why are you Atheist? Why are you Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or Zoroastrianist? For the same simple reason: We believe it to be true.

Back on topic. I'd say completely eliminating religion is a little on the harsh side TED. Destroying a religion, or religion itself would just make it come back stronger. Which is why I will again advocate a method to publically make known the wrongdoings of Scientology. Fighting fire with fire won't solve anything.

Very few atheists I have met have actually given me a reason why they are atheists. I get all sorts of reasons why they're not Christians

The hopelessness example you gave is one I feel to be true, yet you say it is an invalid argument because it is less a statement of faith and more a statement of something outside Christianity.

Second, it appears to me (although I could be wrong) that you have contradicted yourself by saying that atheists analyze their religions and reject them on that basis. Is that not an argument outside atheism, or am I just completely nuts?

I understand why you might say the "atheists make me sad" comment was patronizing, although that was not my intent. To clarify, atheists make me sad because they aren't going to heaven as long as they remain atheists.

As for the rest of this... I could go on and on with you people for days about this, but I just don't have the energy to do so. Believe what you want to believe -- about Jesus, about religion, about me -- I'm just sick of having my posts scanned for messages that aren't there and having assumptions drawn about me. I'd just as soon not bother answering your concerns, because if I do, it will just start this endless downward spiral of never-ending banter about how I'm such a terrible person because I look down on all the rest of you for being non-Christians and about how I keep contradicting myself. It's just not worth the time and energy it takes to respond to all of you because it won't do any good. Your minds won't change because I told them to, so pretty much all I can do at this point is to continue to pray for you and for myself.

Back on topic. I'd say completely eliminating religion is a little on the harsh side TED. tongue.gif Destroying a religion, or religion itself would just make it come back stronger. Which is why I will again advocate a method to publically make known the wrongdoings of Scientology. Fighting fire with fire won't solve anything.

Pes, in the future, I would appreciate you reading my posts and trying your hardest not to bring personal and/or spiritual biases into the conversation. For the record, Mark 16:16 has you covered.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I believe all religion hinders our progression and limits our thoughts and understanding as beings on this planet.

Lol, I find it funny that a discussion on hackers vs Scientology can veer into something to do with Christianity, again. Take your Christianity and Atheist discussion somewhere else please.

Such is the nature of a written debate. Your post will be scanned and things inferred due to lack of tone and emphasis found in verbal debate. If you don't like it you may have to find another medium.

Perhaps you need to focus on your spirituality more. When you can't be bothered responding to concerns about Christianity then you're no longer a good witness. I went through the same stage and ended up with slightly different beliefs, but if Christianity truly makes you whole, as it were, then you should talk things over with your local church leader. Go back to basics.

Hmmm, I may have been unduly harsh in pointing out your statement could come across as patronising. If so you have my apologies. Sometimes some personal views are better left unsaid, or said in a less reactionary manner. Your comment about praying for us, for example, irked me slightly. You meant well, that is without question, but some comments are better left unspoken.

All in all, I'd hate to see someone who provides an excellent counter view to many an argument give up just because of a few comments. Weather through. You'd provide a better example that way than by simply giving up.

Can we go back to making fun of Scientology now? Xenu is ##### coming.

And on Feb. 10, Anonymous--which one member estimates to comprise 9,000 people--plans protests at Scientology sites worldwide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPol_m8wm8Y

Noir check this out. It is what actual Scientologist's do. They attack rather than defend.