Anonymous v Scientology Cyber War on Internet, Protests

reply to post by zaiger


What my intentions was, was to give both sides of the argument, 1st of all posting the argument of Anonymous, Via Videos and evidence etc, then posting the argument from the side of Scientology via Videos and documentation etc, But since you have took upon yourself to intervene and derail what I was going to do,

I am all for it let us both have a frank discussion. If you are willing to that >?

[edit on 4-12-2009 by Laurauk]

I have not dreailed this thread at all. I have been on topic this whole time. If you go back and read the thread you have really not made a reply to any comment I have made. Instead you have posted fallacy, and it started with your first post. Did you even read that article you posted claiming that the church took down 711? It is about a dos attack on a school. A bunch of new moral-/b/tards were using the wrong address.
This thread needs less fail.

DESU DESU

Originally posted by Laurauk

This is not the only isolaed case, Numerous police officials have been interfeering with a peaceful protest by banning the use of the WORD CULT in there prostest by arresting peacefull protestors for refusing to remove thier placards.

In the atlanta incident the protesters from what i can gather were not arrested for their use of the word "cult".

The two protesters, who earlier participated in the delivery of a 'global speech' collaboratively written and read by members of Anonymous at protests worldwide, are believed to have been charged by Dekalb police for protesting without a permit and causing 'offensive or hazardous conditions'
en.wikinews.org...

And your 2nd video is really a piece bashing the police for their evorcement of section 5.

5 Harassment, alarm or distress

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
www.webtribe.net...(1986%20c%2064)%20Sect%204A,%205,%206.htm

You really cannot fault the church for the way UK laws were written and enforced.

You can fault scientology for how it operates though cant you?

I mean actively destroying peoples lives who happen to disagree with your crazy leanings?