Related:
-- Bank of America Plan to Attack WikiLeaks and Others Exposed
-- More on the BofA/WikiLeaks/HBGary/Greenwald story

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by radx.

Best Colbert I've seen in a while. The news is a bit old though, when did it air?

Great stuff, it Colbert trending to Libertarianism as of late? I don't watch many of his clips, but this one and the Ron Paul one seem to have painted that picture in my mind.

Did anyone watch the rest of the segment when he interviews the journalist? There was a moment towards the end of the interview where for a single frame a Guy Fawkes mask (like the one's Anon use, from the movie V for Vendetta) is flashed over Colbert's face. AWESOME.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGZVL24rGY0

*blocked

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by alien_concept.

"Weerm"?

>> ^ghark:

Best Colbert I've seen in a while. The news is a bit old though, when did it air?


I think you mean to say that it's getting a bit cOld in here....

Anonymous likes Colbert:

"Colbert Nation has done several nods to the chans and anon in the past. Steven was holding his face so still for those few seconds that I image super impos[ed] the Guy Fawkes mask onto his face. [It] was just another way to let them know that Colbert Nation thinks what they're doing is cool and just." /Comment made by some anon on the Colbert Nation site.



Story link here: http://www.digitaltrends.com/entertainment/anonymous-mask-flashes-over-stephen-colberts-face-during-colbert-report/
>> ^EMPIRE:

Did anyone watch the rest of the segment when he interviews the journalist? There was a moment towards the end of the interview where for a single frame a Guy Fawkes mask (like the one's Anon use, from the movie V for Vendetta) is flashed over Colbert's face. AWESOME.

Airdate = 24th Feb, 2011. >> ^ghark:

Best Colbert I've seen in a while. The news is a bit old though, when did it air?

If you're going to declare war, you better be sure you can defend as well as attack.
They are legion...
Are you? Can you fight off 10 to 1 highly skilled and motivated individuals?

>> ^raverman:

If you're going to declare war, you better be sure you can defend as well as attack.
They are legion...
Are you? Can you fight off 10 to 1 highly skilled and motivated individuals?


If the US government is on your side and they think it's important enough to find out where these people are and kill them then yeah. Obviously that's not what happened here...just a dumb CEO making claims he can't back up.

Look I love Anon, and Wikileaks, but if the US wanted to be big bad Empire...they could spill a LOT of blood.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^raverman:
If you're going to declare war, you better be sure you can defend as well as attack.
They are legion...
Are you? Can you fight off 10 to 1 highly skilled and motivated individuals?

If the US government is on your side and they think it's important enough to find out where these people are and kill them then yeah. Obviously that's not what happened here...just a dumb CEO making claims he can't back up.
Look I love Anon, and Wikileaks, but if the US wanted to be big bad Empire...they could spill a LOT of blood.


I agree, but I think the U.S. would lose that war eventually unless they can get everyone (they can't) everywhere (they won't, that's war; playing illegal arrest on foreign grounds). The U.S. is not Superman. But, Anonymous has one very deadly weapon, knowledge and a plan of action (as proofed by this guys upheaval). They would lose as a PR game. Sure in the U.S. things might seem semi-peachy, but outside we'd have little footing to stand on. I literally think it would cause an inverted response that you may think they're ready for, but the U.S. has sucked at International PR for a long time. Causing people to "disappear" or arresting them only unleashes the dogs of war.

I frankly don't see the U.S. being able to hold up (certainly, as some countries like China would be happy to have anon). It would be a terrible decision and one they won't make, as we'll be a dictatorship by then. If Colbert is giving them kudos what do you think really happens in that scenario?

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^raverman:
If you're going to declare war, you better be sure you can defend as well as attack.
They are legion...
Are you? Can you fight off 10 to 1 highly skilled and motivated individuals?

If the US government is on your side and they think it's important enough to find out where these people are and kill them then yeah. Obviously that's not what happened here...just a dumb CEO making claims he can't back up.
Look I love Anon, and Wikileaks, but if the US wanted to be big bad Empire...they could spill a LOT of blood.

I agree, but I think the U.S. would lose that war eventually unless they can get everyone (they can't) everywhere (they won't, that's war; playing illegal arrest on foreign grounds). The U.S. is not Superman. But, Anonymous has one very deadly weapon, knowledge and a plan of action (as proofed by this guys upheaval). They would lose as a PR game. Sure in the U.S. things might seem semi-peachy, but outside we'd have little footing to stand on. I literally think it would cause an inverted response that you may think they're ready for, but the U.S. has sucked at International PR for a long time. Causing people to "disappear" or arresting them only unleashes the dogs of war.
I frankly don't see the U.S. being able to hold up (certainly, as some countries like China would be happy to have anon). It would be a terrible decision and one they won't make, as we'll be a dictatorship by then. If Colbert is giving them kudos what do you think really happens in that scenario?


Eventually yes...they would have to try and convince the public that these Hackers are a threat to them. They could convince many governments or convince others to go along with them and help them...that's not hard since Wikileaks is challenging almost all power centers. Anonymous may have right and guts on their side but they are still human beings. What happens to human beings in a group when a few of them get taken to Guantanamo Bay or just killed outright.

Sometimes that type of suppression works and sometimes it doesn't. With the backing of other governments the US could shut down the internet as a response. Also China wouldn't be happy with Anon at all unless they had them under their thumb.

What Anon has to do is appeal to the public which I've seen a bit of but would like to see more. Take any south american country...kill a few social activists there using US proxy forces and as long as the media doesn't report it much it's all fine...stays quiet. Anon having roots in the activist community in the US and some sympathy from the broader public and it's a difference story when one of them gets taken out.

Supporting Anon means being realistic as to who they are and what they can do. Not just saying "Yay Anon do it for the Lols!" They need wide support or we have nameless people being thrown in jail or killed somewhere in the world and no one cares because we have no fucking clue who they are or what they represent.

Remote ipad wipe FTW

Well, I'll point to one example. When they went after Scientology I was quite surprised of the organization and setup. In multiple cities in the U.S. and in International places (mostly NATO countries) like London. They got hundreds in some locations and thousands of people/protesters to show up and protest Scientology's right to be a religion (as they're considered one in the U.S--not sure where they are, out of country of course). Usually, their Constitutional right to be a religion, would be something I would fight for, but they have crossed the line more than enough times that they seem like fair game to me. Hell, we had atleast a couple of hundred, maybe even one thousand, protesting the church in Utah of all places! Utah is far off from any of their headquarters or any major "church", installation, and "health" centers.

(Off-topic Sidenote: The Mormon or LDS church also crossed the line with Proposition 8 in California--I've seen the LDS church get involved in other political affairs, but only to the same extent all churches in this country do--block voting is ridiculous and should almost cause your vote to be counted as less-as you're actively using religion as a political pulpit and then voting from that; if a connection could be made I'd think those votes should be countermanded as well as the religion's tax exemption status--especially when you have meetings, literally, before a vote. Mormons do this, I'VE BEEN to them!)

The fact that Anonymous can pull that off over night means a great deal. They're most defiantly not weekend warriors in their mother's basement (although I'm sure there are plenty like that). They must have quite a few people that are highly trained in a wide range of topics as they've gone after many targets; easily separating, for the majority of Anonymous, what's an incorrect target and what deserves their attention. To me this means you can't write them off in any fashion; as they may have "Ivory Tower" support, due to their targets and being able to seem "right" and "innocuous" at every turn--people cheer them on.

If I had to pick, I would wager that Anonymous can and does affect more changes socially than al-Qaeda; al-Qaeda has a poor societal impact except the desperate or those that have nothing to lose--only if it used like-wise tactics, which they won't (likewise tactics meaning: terrorism, like 9-11). Their methodology is *flashy*, so every media outlet focuses their news-time and airtime on them. If Anonymous did these infamous type of events except against an U.S. enemy, would they have the same "deeply rooted" infamy/notoriety in American society? I'd say yes.

Outside the U.S. they may have that attribution (good doers/fighting evil or infamous) already in certain places. Right now, Americans are more concerned if their McMansion will be a viable end solution or if it's another "living beyond your means", moment.

I do agree with you that Anonymous must be worried about their banner being lifted by the wrong person. But, as their is no leader in Anonymous it will lead to inter-anon wars; we've seen a few, but most have ended blindingly fast. You almost never hear about it unless you dig around (and even then you find out it's a year old).

I'm just trying to remind people that if Anonymous whimsically can get Colbert to wear the mask in solidarity and can gets thousands of protesters to show up at your doorbell overnight (with same mask ), they may have power that I doubt they've even tapped into yet.

Plus, I do think China or any country willing to stand toe to toe with the U.S. would be grateful to have a voracious enemy of the U.S. on their side (yes, I agree that China would be bad; I also doubt that they would choose it--maybe more like Russia). Especially, if it ends up being one that knows the U.S. fairly well. Secondly, as before, taking random people off the street in Anonymous's name would only feed the machine. We have yet to see what happens if Anonymous, itself, is attacked. It's always been a side attack due to another on going event. The rules might change for both sides if it became a "war" (how they target and what is targeted, then how does the information become presentable). Yes, the U.S. could cut-off the Internet, but I think we've learned enough that THAT may be a grander problem for the U.S. than what it originally had (it's happened everywhere else; citizens revolting).

Yes, Anonymous "may" be getting too much credit, but since their anonymous... They might loose badly even in a straight up information war. But, none of this has happened yet or been tested... I agree with the majority of what you're saying @Yogi . I'm just reminding people that underestimation of your enemy (do we, as Americans, really want Anonymous as an enemy? The Colbert show seems to show the opposite...)

Get rid of one person and another falls in to place, and the hacks they do can be taught ridiculously fast. The other side requires *tax payers'* money or private contractors (using *tax payers'* money, or someone like Dick Cheney who has Halliburton), all of which seem shady as what they do is kill other Americans, arrest other Americans, kill NATO citizens or extradite NATO citizens, and heaven forbid: use black-ops for non-Western countries (Anonymous has enough foresight to get clear confirmation of any event and spread it virally; like a video).

If these guys lose one person it takes quite a bit of time to replace--even if they become misaligned with the publics' view, like the guy in Colbert's piece. Everyone will question his motives now except for the complete utter sheep with no in-the-know friends (to explain what Anonymous is doing).

All I'm trying to say is that in an age of information the U.S. may find themselves on equal footing in a war they'd have to start. The U.S. tries a physical response it will be posted in full glorious detail on the net with redundancy ad nauseum (one well placed real-time camera or auto-upload camera and it becomes a nightmare). The U.S. employs thousands of people that can barely log into their e-mail account(s)--these people are also responsible for enacting physical responses. Imagine an Anonymous that hacks, but keeps the game running. Key loggers, viruses, worms, trojans, hardware hacks, software hacks, people IN the government in on it...? Anonymous has always pulled their stunt quickly and shown everyone the ramifications; don't you think a prolonged version would be highly dangerous for both sides?

Again this assumes a lot about Anonymous just from what I've seen them accomplish in the past. They are most defiantly not some sort of elite commando force. What they lack is simply made up in their ability to manipulate data; which is HUGE in this day and age... Anyway that's long enough; respond to the areas you think need to be toned downed or clarified upon.

-grammar edit