# "Anonymous" Gives Westboro Baptist Church Ultimatum



## crushing (Feb 19, 2011)

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 (Feb 19, 2011)

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


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 19, 2011)

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 (Feb 19, 2011)

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 (Feb 19, 2011)

Who among us stands with Anon?


----------



## Big Don (Feb 20, 2011)

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 (Feb 20, 2011)

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 (Feb 20, 2011)

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 (Feb 20, 2011)

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 (Feb 20, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2011)

Omar B said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2011)

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.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 20, 2011)

Westboro says to Anonymous " Bring it Cowards" 
http://www.examiner.com/technology-...church-challenges-hacker-group-to-bring-it-on


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 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.



I liked what happened at ComiCon.  Legal, funny as heck.  Ridicule is an excellent weapon.


----------



## Carol (Feb 20, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Westboro says to Anonymous " Bring it Cowards"
> http://www.examiner.com/technology-...church-challenges-hacker-group-to-bring-it-on



Heheh. Time to get the popcorn.  opcorn:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Westboro says to Anonymous " Bring it Cowards"
> http://www.examiner.com/technology-...church-challenges-hacker-group-to-bring-it-on



Anonymous now states that they did not issue the threat, that the WBC did it themselves, and urges Anonymous members not to do DDOS attacks, claiming that any attacks will fall into honeypots created by WBC to trap the unwary.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/71567

Who knows?


----------



## granfire (Feb 20, 2011)

There is no such thing as bad publicity?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 20, 2011)

granfire said:


> There is no such thing as bad publicity?



True Westboro has been out of the news as of late until this happened


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 20, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> 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.
> ...


 
Wow, that setup sounds eerily similar to the one that I learned about in undergrad being used by ELF. And terrorist cells. Just a thought...

I mean, part of me wants to see these guys burn the WBC, but the rest of me agrees with Bill. Phelps and co. need to be brought down legally, otherwise we'll just make martyrs of them.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 20, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Wow, that setup sounds eerily similar to the one that I learned about in undergrad being used by ELF. And terrorist cells. Just a thought...



OT, but this resembles how 'al qaeda' works.
I read that al qaeda is not 1 centrally run organization, but more like a franchise.
People with the same motives just say they're al qaeda so that they can let al qaeda take the credits. They might get some smallchange sponsoring but that's it.

Win-win. their heroes get the credits, and they get the notoriety of being 'al qaeda'


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 21, 2011)

Big Don said:


> We really ought to stop referring to his group as the Westboro Baptist church and just call them the Phelps family.



How about we just call them dicks?


----------



## Big Don (Feb 21, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> How about we just call them dicks?


Well, yeah. But, since it is mainly just the head dick's (or the other) family, repeatedly referring to them as a church only makes people dislike churches.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 22, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Well, yeah. But, since it is mainly just the head dick's (or the other) family, repeatedly referring to them as a church only makes people dislike churches.



yeah cause its not really a church....more like a cult or something.


----------



## granfire (Feb 22, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> yeah cause its not really a church....more like a cult or something.




Come on, they give cults a bad name, too...


----------



## Omar B (Mar 2, 2011)

Westoboro Baptist Church Vs Anon on a talk show!  Watch the fireworks, gets great at around 8:00.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJwSjor4hM&feature=player_embedded


----------



## granfire (Mar 2, 2011)

can somebody put a gym sock in her mouth?


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 2, 2011)

Omar B said:


> Westoboro Baptist Church Vs Anon on a talk show!  Watch the fireworks, gets great at around 8:00.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJwSjor4hM&feature=player_embedded



Wouldn't it be cool if someone were to start a mail campaign that contained nothing but this from the sermon on the Mount of Olives:

Matthew 25:34-46

34"Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink,m I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you closed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee or naked and clothe thee? 39And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' 40And the Kind will answer them, *'Truly, I say unto you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'* 41Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45Then he will answer them,* 'Truly, I say unto you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'* 46And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."


----------



## elder999 (Mar 2, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> Wouldn't it be cool if someone were to start a mail campaign that contained nothing but this from the sermon on the Mount of Olives:
> 
> Matthew 25:34-46
> 
> 34"Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink,m I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you closed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee or naked and clothe thee? 39And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' 40And the Kind will answer them, *'Truly, I say unto you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'* 41Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45Then he will answer them,* 'Truly, I say unto you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'* 46And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."


 
:asian:

Or maybe just:



> Whoever does not love does not know God, because *God is love*.
> _John 4:8_


 
'cause it's got little words.....:lfao:


----------



## granfire (Mar 2, 2011)

evil people...why not hit them over the head with the Good Word?

:lfao:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 2, 2011)

I'm ok with that....or using the US Rangers 'light touch knock out' technique, which usually involves throwing a little tiny piece of metal at them from half a mile away.....


----------



## granfire (Mar 2, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm ok with that....or using the US Rangers 'light touch knock out' technique, which usually involves throwing a little tiny piece of metal at them from half a mile away.....




you mean ..... what metal?

(lead?)




:lfao:


----------



## Hudson69 (Mar 2, 2011)

Ignore the hate mongers, they are only looking to sue to make money for their "church."  The Patriot Guard Riders are a big help in keeping their hate messages away from the heroes funerals they try and defile.


----------



## Master Dan (Mar 2, 2011)

Rule of Law Hummmmmm  

Lets see free speach I believe in but nothing says we have to read it, see it or hear it we can not read a paper we can turn off radio and tv but how can a hurt family not see or hear what they do where are their rights to a quite dignafied funeral for those who have give all for the rest of us?

They need to be moved at least far enough away so the family cannot see or hear them. Frankly the Adams Famly oops Phelps are afraid to get out of sight from the media because law of nature would then apply?

Finally with out the Phelps family involvment there would be no story and the funeral would not recieve any attention so infact thier behavior forces the family to have their loved one outed removing their rights. Real justice would be someone or a group with enough money to pay for all the expenses to conduct the funeral and burial with out any possibility of interference by this group. 

unfortunatly pursecution and vilionization of others is a common practice of failing churches and politiical groups to hold on to membership or increase it to gain power and money as long as man has been around.


----------



## David43515 (Mar 2, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Well, yeah. But, since it is mainly just the head dick's (or the other) family, repeatedly referring to them as a church only makes people dislike churches.


 
"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."
James 1:27 (New Testement)

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.And the second is like, namely this, *Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.* There is none other commandment greater than these." Mark 12:30-31 (New Testement)

Would a little compassion for people mourning the loss of their child, their husband, their father kill these jerks? Please don`t make the mistake of lumping all churches in with the likes of these hate-filled nuts.


----------



## granfire (Mar 2, 2011)

nah, after a short while it all becomes clear that they are singular loony...


----------



## cdunn (Mar 3, 2011)

An essay from one of the guys kids explaining how it happens, and exactly why its as hideous as it is.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> There is no such thing as bad publicity?





ballen0351 said:


> True Westboro has been out of the news as of late until this happened


Yep.

Wanna really hurt 'em?  Ignore the idjits.  I support laws that restrict the LOCATION of Westboro's "protests" and suspect they'll pass constitutional muster.  But give 'em their spot, and leave 'em alone.  No press.  No counter protest.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> Come on, they give cults a bad name, too...



well thats true.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 3, 2011)

Read the essay, seen him give interviews a few times too.

This is a cult, a cult of personality, dominated and manipulated at the top by a sadistic narcissist pig, not very much different then what takes place in the leadership of Libya or North Korea. 

What he does with his family, his children and his grandchildren is child abuse, plain and simple, no covering it up with his bull **** delusional version of a religion. If this was done outside of the blanket of religion, he would be arrested and prosecuted on multiple counts of endangerment and abuse. 

I have no doubt he believes exactly what he preaches, but how anyone can willingly brainwash their own children/grandchildren with such hatred is beyond my comprehension. 

Someone with very deep pockets needs to bankrupt this son of a *****.


----------



## billc (Jun 2, 2012)

I mistakenly posted this on a thread in the rec room, so I moved it here since this was the first study thread on the westboro baptist church that came up in the search function...

I only post on this thread on westboro because it was the first one to come up, although there are several on this group.  I am trying to finish up Ann Coulter's latest book, Demonic, and I came across a mention of Fred Phelps, the leader of the Westboro baptist church, and I have to say, I wasn't surprised at what I read.  I then went to wikipedia to at least check another source, since the info. came from Ann Coulter the critics would immediatly jump on it, to verify what Ann pointed out... Here it is...


> Democratic PartyPhelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times, but has never won. These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15 percent of the vote in 1998.[SUP][33][/SUP] In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31 percent of the vote.[SUP][34][/SUP] Phelps ran for mayor of Topeka in 1993[SUP][35][/SUP][SUP][36][/SUP] and 1997.[SUP][37][/SUP]
> * Support for Al Gore*
> 
> Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party presidential primary election.[SUP][38][/SUP] In his 1984 Senate race, Gore opposed a "gay bill of rights" and stated that homosexuality was not something that "society should affirm".[SUP][39][/SUP] Phelps has stated that he supported Gore because of these earlier comments.[SUP][40][/SUP] According to Phelps, members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore's 1988 campaign in Kansas. Phelps' son, Fred Phelps Jr., hosted a Gore fundraiser at his home in Topeka and was a Gore delegate to the 1988 Democratic National Convention.[SUP][4][/SUP] Gore spokesman Dag Vega declined to comment, saying "We are not dignifying those stories with a response."[SUP][41][/SUP]
> ...



Why is it never mentioned in any of the reporting that Fred Phelps is a democrat?  Or that he supported Al Gore?  People always assume he must be a right wing republican which is not the case.  hmmmm...


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 2, 2012)

I can't agree with Anonymous's methods, even if I agree with a lot of thier phylosophy.  Its wrong to do what they do and they need to be held accountable.  Having said that, if someone HAD to be hacked, I can't think of a more deserving group than Phelps merry band of bigots.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jun 2, 2012)

Analmouse are terrorist scum. But if they are going to go be all terrorist, then picking on another terrorist scum group is cool. As long as they aren't beating up hot dog vendors again. That was not cool.


----------

