4 ms·

The moment I saw this news I thought false flag! And I may have been right: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/17v9zy/anonymous_posts_over_4000_us_ba

The moment I saw this news I thought false flag! And I may have been right: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/17v9zy/anonymous_posts_over_4000_us_bank_executive/c899cdo http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/17v9zy/anonymous... The feds have been investigating the bankers, and I'm sure they had access to all that information. The feds are having their own terrorist plots (that then they "uncover" themselves). Is it really that far fetched for this to have happened, too?

weareconvo 14y ago
Yes, except, the feds can join Anonymous if they wish. That's half of the point of Anonymous - it's not a distinct group of people. It's just a banner.
GHFigs 14y ago
It's much more likely that you're witnessing the confluence of confirmation bias and the inherent ambiguity created by many different sets of people operating under the same name. We have, in fact, been through this before with "Anonymous", because anybody can claim to be "Anonymous". (The post on reddit is hilariously out of touch with this fundamental reality.) You, personally, have been making claims of false flag attacks for years with a similar lack of evidence. (e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2659640 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2659640) You might just be seeing what you want to see, instead of drawing the most accurate conclusions you can make based on the available evidence.