The "Anonymous" Scientology Protest is an NSA/FBI Fishing Expedition

and can you prove you are not an OSA plant?

Yes. The proof that I'm not an agent and you are an agent is in the stances we've taken. I've explained how your whole Anonymous movement is based on dangerously fingering out a fringe cult. I've explained how you're promoting religious intolerance under the guise of doing good. If you want to take up a court case with Tom Cruise and sue him for scaring Oprah or something, that is taking legal action on behalf of your supposed beliefs. That's not what you're doing. What you're doing is creating fake screen names, pretending you're some movement of anonymous Scientology haters, to stir up a new Problem-Reaction-Solution... one that likely involves internet censorship or promoting some moral relativity concerning our first ammendment rights to religion.

You don't see me creating fake names, agreeing with myself and giving myself stars. The truth doesn't need to be repeated and reinforced from multiple angles like your lies do.

reply to post by freight tomsen


You are right on so many points.

However, hundreds of scientology people were let into 911 ground zero area and they admistered Hubbard TECH on all the people in there.

Why do you think people which have access to brainwashing were allowed into the security zone?

Is it because they needed to erase memories? What could have people seen which would make a need for that?

Some people are not diverting, i am suggesting, but helping give you guys extra clues to how the NWO will try and take power.

The fish here is not as small as perhaps you may think. You may already know these things. I'm not sure. Interested in finding out more what you know on the subject.

[edit on 28-2-2008 by helatrobus]

Yes. The proof that I'm not an agent and you are an agent is in the stances we've taken. I've explained how your whole Anonymous movement is based on dangerously fingering out a fringe cult. I've explained how you're promoting religious intolerance under the guise of doing good.

No one is promoting religious intolerance here.

What is being promoted is the idea that religion cannot get away with human right abuses. Going against pedophile priests is not religious intolerance is it?
Human right abuses are drawing people away from religion wouldn't you agree? I think now more people in the world are against religion than at any other time and its because some religious entities are doing abusive things.

Good religion is being promoted here. The first amendment protects religions but it also protects that of individual from being abused. The first amendment also protects people who want to protest. No one wants to slip into the dark ages, the era of burnings, witch hunts and plagues, and where reason was lost. Do they?

I don't think there are any other fringe religions which have as many ex members complaining about abuses as there are from CO$. Why can't you accept for one moment that these people have been hurt?

It comes across as, "who gives a # about them, I'm just going to hold onto my stubborn ideology" I'm not saying that's what you are intending. In fact i think you are indeed a caring person, just saying that's how it comes across to me. When you say that the intention of an individual is different from what he or she says then it becomes very offensive.

So on this board the rules are no offending other people. We need these rules. I agree with them whole heartily. I can't call you a terrorist because it's unfounded. No proof is presented. Likewise, in return, you can't call me a terrorist. I'm not saying you did. But if someone did then i have a right to defend myself don't I? I also have the right to have moderation put you under control and delete your posts and according to the rules, I’m sure they would oblige. If they didn't then perhaps i would maybe not live by those rules.

What I'm saying here and I'm sure one of the top people on this board, like the executives, while listening to my reasoning would agree, and I encourage their response, is that the topic should be discussed in an orderly fashion and anyone who makes outlandish and defamatory claims against others as per the rules will have their posts deleted.

As the original poster to this thread made claims against individuals and those individuals, a lot of them long time members of ATS, defended themselves with calm and reason, I think it is fair that the intentions supplied by them not be attacked. A lot of members got angry when this forum mods didn’t play with the rules and allowed these attacks to go on with some even encouraging them. If need be I can supply a full list of quotes. Just ask.

I understand this is a conspiracy site and certain groups will be the target of claims. I don't have a problem with that. But when the group is made up of individuals with no leadership, each working off his/her own conscience
towards a common cause then you are attacking individuals.

You might say and some have expressed that that is not the case. You have a right to express yourself but if you are not correct then you are defaming those individuals and breaking the rules of this board. You can imagine how upset those people will become if they are not protected by administrators can't you? I mean if they were telling their own truth as they saw right? Mods can't be perfect so things will slip here and there but overall you could see how this would upset them?

I personally think this is exactly what is happening.

So in order to move forward this exciting discussion from the pitfalls of flames, it would be good to see what the executives of this board say on this matter?

reply to post by freight tomsen






how many times do we have to say that it's not about the religion but the corporation? we don't care what people believe. as long as they have the freedom to question it. and we don't appreciate adults and children being held hostage either; being told they'll get RPF if the don't keep scientology moving.

are you being deliberately obtuse now? every other post has clearly explained that we don't have a problem with the people or their beliefs, and this is coming from the people that actually organised the whole thing.

plus i'd bet nobody is "agreeing with themselves". if anything, single posts here are from multiple contributors. we have several sites where the link to this thread was posted requesting that anybody that thinks they can speak for us, do. hundreds more people will have seen this than posted.

is there a way to see views per thread anywhere. i'll bet this thread has an unusually high spike.



and in reply to helatrobus.

i doubt the government would trust scientologists to hypnotise people into forgetting things. scientology starts by making you vulnerable through trust exercises and convincing you, you have authority. the rest is just inducing panic attacks. well, sort of. point is they are so far away from being the "authorities on the mind".

in fact a reliable inside source is quoted as hearing "i've paid thousands of dollars attaining OT and i don't have #. THAT! [points to protestors] that's OT and on a global scale"

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord



FROM THIS POINT FORWARD

Yes, please read reply in above post thanks (two posts up, someone got in befor I had finished). Please consider my reasoning.


*bumping for justice*

[edit on 28-2-2008 by helatrobus]

and in reply to helatrobus.

i doubt the government would trust scientologists to hypnotise people into forgetting things. scientology starts by making you vulnerable through trust exercises and convincing you, you have authority. the rest is just inducing panic attacks. well, sort of. point is they are so far away from being the "authorities on the mind".

Yes, I agree.

I was just trying to communicate in a language i don't understand.

Did I just say that out loud?

Originally posted by freight tomsen
Yes. The proof that I'm not an agent and you are an agent is in the stances we've taken. I've explained how your whole Anonymous movement is based on dangerously fingering out a fringe cult. I've explained how you're promoting religious intolerance under the guise of doing good. If you want to take up a court case with Tom Cruise and sue him for scaring Oprah or something, that is taking legal action on behalf of your supposed beliefs. That's not what you're doing. What you're doing is creating fake screen names, pretending you're some movement of anonymous Scientology haters, to stir up a new Problem-Reaction-Solution... one that likely involves internet censorship or promoting some moral relativity concerning our first ammendment rights to religion.

You don't see me creating fake names, agreeing with myself and giving myself stars. The truth doesn't need to be repeated and reinforced from multiple angles like your lies do.

you don't see ME makeing fake names, and how the hell do I know YOU haven't? oh, yeah, no one else on this forum seems to agree with you, that's right. because you alone know the truth that we are agents of alien communist nazi psychiatrist jews.

but you have managed to completely fail to explain how we are attacking anyones rights, you have failed completely to explain how we are fomenting hate or intolerance, you have absolutely failed to do anything but constantly accuse without any support or evidence and to call names and when you get called out on it you just ignore it and start over. you do however seem to love fomenting hate and intolerance for us. nice how that works.

you have done nothing but acted exactly like a textbook example of an OSA disinformation agent trying to foment hate for us and inject black PR.

the fact of the matter is our whole movement was founded upon freedom of speech, it was the one moral the channers had. the trigger was when the CoS misused copyright law to silence material that was damaging to it. why are you not railing against this act? wouldn't it be lovely if some big corporation used this same tactic? imagine if Monsanto copyrighted every meeting they had, and one day when a copy of the minutes of some meeting were leaked that had damning content it used copyright law to prevent any new source from publishing it. any tactic the CoS uses could be used by someone else, a "bigger fish", how do you know the CoS isn't a testing ground for other people?

but go ahead, say once again that I'm some disinformation agent with out having any evidence, go ahead make more attacks on my character rather than my words, say that I'm fomenting hate without providing any evidence to back it up, call me more names. make another bizar argument that because I missed a single typo that somehow proves I'm from the CIA.

and on the 15th, while I'm walking in the real world trying to stop an abusive corporation that has ruined hundreds of thousands of lives, you just keep calling me names and not doing anything yourself.

i think i know what freight is trying to say:

It's not a pedophile priest. It's a pedophile.
It's not all of scientology, but a select few, that are causing the problems according to your data.
If an arab goes into a store and robs it, he's not an islamic thief or an arabic thief, he's a thief.
If a pagan shoots his brother, he's a murderer, not a pagan murderer.
If an atheist writes a bad check, he's a bad check writer, not an atheist bad check writer.
It's not fair to the rest of the scientologists, that all of them have to endure the negativity because some of them are not behaving humanely.

Is this what you were saying freight?

Stereotyping really does sucketh the raw tomato.

You've got that right. Thank you

No. That is what you are saying and you provide a valid point.

Like, one anon could do something, doesn't mean the rest are like that?

Yes agree with your point.

I agree less stereotyping should be had in regards. If we can share that rule amongst this discussion, i would be more than happy to comply.

However, if we had pedophilia in the church and the church wasn't doing anything about it and it became rampart then we would then have a right to protest that the church changes it's administration. As humans we would protest naturally if this was not done.

So if a religion is covering wide abuse and not doing anything about it then I fail to see how protesting about it is wrong. It's a right. An essential human right.

That's what anon are saying they are doing and they are backed up by thousands of ex scientologists who are saying the exact same thing.

So lets not get off topic here, let's focus on some of the more interesting points raised in that previous discussion.

So if a religion is covering wide abuse and not doing anything about it then I fail to see how protesting about it is wrong. It's a right. An essential human right.

Well, it's like... let me put it in perspective.

Joe Public is a man who likes to abuse women.
Therefore, every man should be protested because one man abused women.
(multiply that by how many men literally do abuse women every year, you would have yourself one heckuva protest and if you're male, you would be protesting yourself. ... (not that protesting cruel and harsh treatment of people in general, is bad, per sey, just giving you some perspective)

So if you assume "religion" is the problem, that's where you're wrong. It isn't religion, it's people. We are kinda wacky in the brainpan.

Originally posted by undo
i think i know what freight is trying to say:
...

if an organization tries to use it's power and influence to cover up said pedophile, because he happens to be a member of said organization and his being convicted will damage the organization, what should the reaction towards that organization be?

Originally posted by another anon
but go ahead, say once again that I'm some disinformation agent with out having any evidence, go ahead make more attacks on my character rather than my words, say that I'm fomenting hate without providing any evidence to back it up, call me more names. make another bizar argument that because I missed a single typo that somehow proves I'm from the CIA.

I can see that you are frustrated, but you've missed something here.

This is a conspiracy theory forum, which is part of a site dedicated to weird and wonderful things, which means that people are going to have unusual ideas and postulate about stuff.

And all the while people are reading and taking in and making up their own minds on which side of the divide they want to walk on.

That doesn't mean the OP was right or wrong, and doesn't mean anyone contributing in the thread is right or wrong. It means - and I want to be clear on this - that opinions are put forward and views are exchanged.

Everyone is free to make up their own mind.

Personally, I respect your right to do what you feel necessary.

I will say this though. You won't get anyone from ATS coming onto 4Chan, suggesting that you run it in a different way, arguing about how you Sage your undesirable discussions away, screaming censorship when it happens and suggesting that OSA agents are working together to dismiss valid discussions and get them off the channel. To do so would be grossly unfair and would undermine the way that the people their do business.

And yet some people who have claimed to be "Anons." have done that here, violating the ATS T&C on the way and seemingly wanting to ignore the way we do things here.

Why is that? Respect is a two-way street.

Originally posted by another anon

Originally posted by undo
i think i know what freight is trying to say:
...

if an organization tries to use it's power and influence to cover up said pedophile, because he happens to be a member of said organization and his being convicted will damage the organization, what should the reaction towards that organization be?

i know what your saying, believe me.
the problem in a nutshell is this: have you ever read a story about a person falsely accused of crimes and imprisoned, only to find out 30 years later that the person was innocent? or the people on death row who were executed by the state only to find out they didn't commit the crime they were executed for (which is one of the reasons i don't agree with the death penalty). i have seen some of these true life stories.

now i'm not saying that these people you're protesting are not guilty nor that they are guilty. what i'm saying is, this is the reason we have systems of law. if we go vigilante, we lose perspective and become puppets of even crazier people than the ones we are protesting, because without a system of checks and balances, it becomes a mob.

Well i think you should listen a bit more carefully to my reasoning before being eager to make judgements otherwise you might find your pride might stop you from connecting to another possibility- as pride has been known to do.

I'm not saying you will do that but I mean to take this out of context in regards to the other propositions does make one feel you are eager for defence.

Let me spell out exactly what i am saying.

If an institution, any institution religous or otherwise. protects men that abuse women, then do we have a right to protest? If i was to say it further, if any institution had an administration that allowed, encouraged or otherwise supported universal abuse against women would it be ok for women to protest? A simple yes or no answer would be okay, with explaination will be ok.

Further, In the Jonestown incident where 900 cult members practiced their free right to commit suicide and complete the murder of 200 children in the name of religion, are they all individuals making free choice or are they a collective of cult members who are brainwashed by a systematic administration which seeks to abuse that collective? In this case if ex- members sought help and some championed their rights, would, if the said administration kept its abusive nature, those people be in their rights to both protest and seek government support against that abuse? Like wise a yes or no answer and the reasoning behind it would be ok.

baiting is not cool.

reply to post by neformore


No one was suggesting anything be changed here. I think the question i got was why are the rules not protecting some members?

If you see towards the top of the page I have a post on this that clarifies and i'm sure another anon was refering to that.

Could we have a response and clarification on some of those questions?

[edit on 28-2-2008 by helatrobus]

a collective of cult members who are brainwashed by a systematic administration which seeks to abuse that collective?

Yes, I believe you have the right to protest anything you want.
And yes, I believe anyone has the right to protest things like the abuse of women or the abuse of people in general.
I just don't think your current approach is going to help. And as freight
mentioned, it sounds as if it could make matters worse. What if
innocent members of scientology are even further abused by
the public because of this? Will that help those poor, brainwashed
members of the church, as someone put it? Or will it further victimize them
like the Waco fiasco, where the people who were trying to "rescue"
those poor branch davidians from that evil brainwasher david koresh, ended up causing all their deaths in a fiery inferno with live ammunition rounds pinging off the walls.

Media has conditioned us to think of each other as labels. Some labels
carry a positive note and some do not. Most of the time, people are not defined by their belief system if they don't happen to be religious, but if they do follow any particular religion and have done anything wrong, this is brought up and drug around like a trophy fish on a fishing line. All it does is divide us even further.

Aren't you worried it could backfire? What if it grows out of control and becomes more than a peaceful protest? Would this be a good thing in your estimation? I can see revolution of this magnitude were you in a society of mainly unmarried men. But most people are in socieities filled with families. I don't even like the idea of the runaway train that so many are saying we need to have in order to fix what's wrong with the world. It's usually single people and young folks who have only themselves to worry about that think this is a good option.

You will do what you feel is right of course. Just don't hurt anyone. If this gets outta control, I'm gonna get down on the kneecaps and pray real hard for it to stop.

reply to post by undo


Yes, your opinion is ok. You can choose what is right for you. For me personally, i don't run on fear. I run on Love.

I'm not saying that's what you are doing. It's just a lot of those comments were "what ifs" And if i let them enter my heart i may as well not walk down the street I would be that afraid.

So feel free to walk your path, i'll walk mine.

However, the discussion is not about personal opinions.

The focus at this point in time is about defamination and why it shouldn't be included in the future. Once we cleared that up then we need to get back to the discussion at hand.

And thankyou for not holding onto pride...