This response makes a fair amount of sense. The news is spreading rampant, and not just here. The media will likely twist it how they will (either for or agains

This response makes a fair amount of sense. The news is spreading rampant, and not just here. The media will likely twist it how they will (either for or against), but the word is getting out there. What will this publicity accomplish, though? I'm rambling and speaking out of my thoughts (no facts), but I imagine: Those for Wikileaks and what it stands for will be: a) encouraged to take up arms and fight b) appalled by the actions and, while agreeing with the stance, disapprove of the strikes. Those against Wikileaks will likely use this assault as more reason to fuel their opposition: "look at what those terrorists that support Wikileaks are doing!" But how will this affect those who are on the fence? Of course, from further contemplation, perhaps what this will do is bring Wikileaks further into the people's eyes and start conversations. The conversations may leave "look at what Anonymous is doing" to "look at what the government is doing to Wikileaks? Is this right? Is this wrong? What if this begins to happen elsewhere?" And when questions like that are asked, people begin to take sides, and when people take sides, some of them join the fight. Perhaps that is the final goal of Anonymous... or perhaps I'm giving them too much credit.