Comments:"Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology"

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


Comments? Wilhelm 09:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[]

EXTERMINATE! --Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[]

More power to them! I'm pleased to see that some of the numerous people who are opposed to this BS are finally banding together in a manner which shouldn't get them sued (but we all know the record...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytterix (talkcontribs) 23:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Tame /b/tards? On my Wikinews?Edit

It's moar likely than I thought! I was expecting this article to break out in anti-Scientology POV and possibly references to Longcat, Mudkips, Slowpoke and Twinkie House, but I was wrong. --TUFKAAP 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Oh my god, what the hell is this? This isn't news. Anonymous isn't real just because Fox said they were. This article is a waste of space. -- 00:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

  • GTFO!! --TUFKAAP 01:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Anonymous would never vandalize Wikinews/Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

I don't know about that. But Wikinews provides this comment namespace so people can do their bit of lulz without interfering with the actual article. I'd expect most "anonymous" to roll up their sleeves and get to work if we have another Virgina Tech or London Bombings, this is just the campaign du-jour and I'm glad it is slowly making its way into the mainstream.
I'd like to think Wikinews cuts people - anonymous or otherwise - a little more slack than over on Wikipedia. We want contributing here to be fun, not just a challenging slog. There are standards, but something like this article meets them. Look on the article talk and you'll see me questioning inclusion of material from alt.religion.scientology. My concerns that this group was not represented were quickly addressed and I believe led to a far more well-rounded article. If there is a followup we all need to dig up the notable blog posts where people say "This is illegal - but hilarious", I'm sure even some of the mainstream press who have coverage and blogs will let their reporters say that. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]
I agree with Brianmc (talk · contribs), your points from the talk page about the alt.religion.scientology sources did make the article better. I'm compiling newer sources that cropped up after this article was published on the article's talk page, and we shall see if there are enough sources/new info to write something about. Wilhelm 14:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Last night I was lurking for male JB pics and 12chan was down, (anyway I ended up fapping to pics of one of my classmates) and on /b/ I thought what's with the SCIENTOLOGY SPAM?? I should probably gb2 Gaia if this really is news... 21:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Tom Cruise is a pretty cool guy, eh fights evil spacemen and doesn't afraid of anything.Edit

Oh and personally I think this article needs moar lulz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Don't you worry, the lulz will be coming. Personally, it's about time the "Internet hate machine" does something good for once. IIRC their efforts last year helped nab a convicted sex offender- they're obviously out for the greater good. This should be quite hilarious to watch unfold. (not that I officially condone such behavior, but, hey, it's always fun to watch. :P) Sneakernets 01:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

These people must be put to justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

I respect the Operation Clambake author and I understand his concerns. He is of course right. But it's just to lulzy to pass up. will continue to spread the $350,000 documents and ridicule them as we see fit.

Now this is the religion all about how,

Hubbard's wallet got flipped turned upside down. So hook up an E-meter and sit right there I'll tell you how you became a human Preclear.

On the planet Coltice born and raised Mining Vespene gas is how I spent most of my days, Being overpopulated and relaxin' all cool and all playing some Thetan ball outside Scientology school. When a couple of Psychiatrists who were up to no good, started freezing brothers in my neighborhood, I got in one little volcano and my Overlord Got scared and said "your moving with the homospaiens on Teegeeak, that planet with air"

So I Whistled for a DC8 and when it came near, It had no propellers just rockets in the rear If anything I could say the in-flight brainwashing movie was rare but I thought "nah forget it, Then they put me in a box using some Ghostbusters gear"

I pulled up to the planet about 7 or 8 million years ago And yelled to Xenu "Yo ho, Imprison you later" I looked at my Thetans, we were finally there To haunt us some primates with little body hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myahon (talkcontribs) 05:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Steven Hawking versus CoSEdit

I browsed through a.r.s. this morning and saw someone comment on the "Anonymous" video - comparing the voice synth to Steven Hawking. Heh. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

All of you, throwing "memes" about. Why not snowballs ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]


anonymous is not an organisation in the traditional sense; this is where both it's greatest strength and wekaness is derived from. as there is no central point, place, person, or website of anonymous, it is impossible to locate anonymous, or to dismantle the "organisation". not even those within anonymous know more than maybe a handful of other users, and when anonymous meet In Real Life, they are masked. This also means that there is no central rallying point, no way to make definite plans. But this will not stop anonymous.

we are anonymous. we are legion. 12:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

we suck


Seriously though, this won't stop scientology all we can do is make people aware IRL.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

...They call themselves "Anonymous", the are "hackers on steriods"... --TUFKAAP 00:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]

OH NOES! They are gonna blow up a van! 02:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]

We are everywhere.We can attack scientology wherever and whenever.

we are anonymous. we are legion. expect us.

On playing fairEdit

Unfortunately, playing fair and being nice isn't going to win the fight. When you're up against a giant who plays dirty and doesn't care, you have to gouge eyes and kick shins. This is a war of jerkiness. Whichever group is the biggest asshole wins. I love the assholes on the *chans so I hope to Xenu they win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

fun fun funEdit

this is hilarious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

They'll keep fighting...Edit

And they'll win!

March on, brave /b/tards, do not stop till the enemy is completely and utterly destroyed. Or you know, epic lulz are achieved. 16:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

I think anonymous is a pretty cool guy. He's taking on an extremely dangerous cult that has destroyed lives and doesn't afraid of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

It is outstanding that two major critics of Scientology have affirmed their belief that even Scientology has a right to free speach while those critics continue to make the public aware of Scientology's unethical, and deceitful practices. Scientology has the right to believe what it will. It is it's behavior which violates the standards of virtually every world religion. And the critics keep documenting those practices. All of Scientology's protests fall on deaf ears as they continue to attempt to silence public debate. I too believe that Time Magazine was correct when it called Scientology "a cults of greed and power....a mafia like organization....a huge global racket". Why do they hide from open debate and conversations about the content of their organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FamiliarwithCOS (talkcontribs) 17:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Scientology is fake, Christianity is real !Edit

Scientology is weird. They believe weird things! But Christians believe in only reasonable things! Thing like invisible angels and demons. And virgin births. And supernatural miracles that defy the laws of physics. And that God once killed everyone in the entire world with a great flood. Even all the babies! All drowned! Yikes! They believe that only one family survived. Then He sent a ghost (yep, a ghost) to impregnate a virgin lady. Why? So she could deliver a man-god called Jesus. Why? So Jesus could be tortured and then killed! Why? So Christians, but ONLY Christians, could live forever and ever! LOL! Absolute insanity! And you laugh at Scientology? (preceding unsigned comment by

  • You don't have to pay money, whether it be thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars, to learn about all that stuff you mentioned above. Wilhelm 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

thank god anon has taken up arms against this overgrown cult. if only i could help! alas, i am but a poor nursing student who can barely work microsoft word.

we are Anonymous we do not forgive we do not forget we are legion —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Message to CoSEdit

ALL UR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!!!1111one —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Hope it's not two-faced.Edit

I wonder if "Anonymous" supports net neutrality... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

I wouldn't put it past the scientology bigwigs to be behind this. How many people do you think visited the site since this started? More traffic then normal perhaps? I came to this possibility when I myself went to the website to see if it was unavailable then realizing I would have avoided it like the plague otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

response to Heldal-Lund's quoteEdit

"Freedom of speech means we need to allow all to speak - including those we strongly disagree with. I am of the opinion that the Church of Scientology is a criminal organisation and a cult which is designed by its delusional founder to abuse people. I am still committed to fight for their right to speak their opinion." - Heldal-Lund

Their right to free speech -- in the eyes of anon -- was nullified the moment they attempted to prevent the free speech of another by attempting to remove the Tom Cruise video from youtube. So, Heldal-Lund, understand that it goes both ways (which I'm sure you do, but you need to maintain some platform for the public). As stated, "Freedom of speech means we need to allow all to speak," emphasis on the 'all'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Including, you, right now.  :) Wilhelm 21:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

We Are AnonymousEdit

That was a cool vid... don't know much about scientology and it's roles on teh inter-webs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]


The party is over for this insistence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

right or wrong?Edit

The real power of scientology is them having enough money to hire an army of attorneys and detectives (on the side of suing the critics / digging up all kind of mistakes critics of the "church" have made as they were fifteen or so, for example "this critic smoked 30 years ago a joint, he's not credible"). Having a *lot* of money helps in some other ways too: hire the best man (woman) for the job, for example "public relations", rhetorics. You have the right to have a specialist represent you in court (attorney), you should have the right to present you critic about some organization formulated by a specialist in the matter.

I'm a christian, so please don't judge me so hard for what I'm going to write. What would you do if someone would come to you and say: "either you pay us or we will ruin your life!"? What would you say if someone would come to you and would say: "I want to use you and your country the way *I* want, if you don't agree we will use our money and power to destroy you!". So how do *you* react to such demands?

I disagree profoundly with the solution "terrorism". But what else have you as an alternative to fight great power and money?

What else have you to fight the media? The media dictates who will be the next President of the USA. A favorite candidate just stated he spoke to the president of Germany, Putin(sorry Putin is the president of russia.German chancelor is Merkel.greetings M.P.). No comments to that.

What shall we do to help having a free, democratic, war-free world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Attacking their websites is wrong. The long-term critics who have been investigated, sued, defamed, etc. etc. have said so.
I'm waiting on the Church of Scientology putting their side. I've emailed them an initial list of questions on the "leaked" Crazy Tom video where he declares war on Psychiatry through to the attack and counter-attack on That was yesterday morning - so far nothing back. If you've any questions related to these issues you'd like me to put to them, send me an email or leave them on my talk page. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]
I agree it is not a great idea to attack their websites. But it should also be noted that the high-ranking members of the Church of Scientology have used illegal methods methods in the past to pursue their means. Look up "Operation Freakout" and "Operation Snow White". Several Church of Scientology operatives infiltrated the United States federal government in several branches, were convicted and went to federal prison - including L. Ron Hubbard's wife, Mary Sue Hubbard. Cheers, Cirt 13:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]
One action does not justify the other - just that it is very difficult to protest peacefully against an organization that does not necessarily play fairly or by the same rules. (E.g. litigious nature, use of private investigators, "Fair Game" doctrine, etc.) Cirt 13:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Scientologists, you won't control Wikinews forever, mwahahaEdit

Scientologists, again, you have effectively published your "truth" on Wikinews, but you can't hold out forever. You may think you can stop me by running a POV-pushing cabal on Wikinews to get pro-Scientology fluff pieces featured on the front page, while getting admins sympathetic to your cause to abuse their powers.

Your pathetic dianetics and other trinkets based on futuristic technology discovered by by L. Ron Hubbard in the 1960's cannot match up with my galactic technology which is BILLIONS of eons ahead of you. Right now, I have an invisible "brainwashing machine" filled with MILLIONS of clams, circling the earth, convincing the average person that Scientology is a cult. Why else do you think they would believe that? Mwahahahahahaha!!!

Also, you got your facts wrong: "Anonymous" is my middle name. My first name is actually Eric. 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC) aka Anonymous/Xenu/Eric[]

D: NOTHING MAKES SENSE ANYMORE!!! --TUFKAAP 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]

I'd like to know which of the 13 articles in Category:Scientology A/X/E thinks is "pro-Scientology fluff". I see a number of articles about "Tom's Crazy Antics", a few about the interaction between Scientology and various governments and courts, the Isaac Hayes/South Park incident, and an interview with a Scientology critic. And, of course, the two articles on this DDoS attack. That none of the articles say "Scientology is a dumbass cult" is just WN:NPOV at work. And the second paragraph, if anything, would surely be reason for Scientology to rethink its position of the helpfulness of psychiatry. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 01:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]

The funny thing is, ConMan: Mainstream media sources, more often than not, do say "Scientology is a dumbass cult." Because that's what it is.

Look at some of the sources in the article:

"War Breaks Out Between Hackers and Scientology -- There Can Be Only One" [1]

"Threatening Thetans (for great justice)?" [2]

Calling the article "Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology" gives the cult a false aura of being a religion. In every article on Scientology, it should be ridiculed, in accordance with WN:NPOV, because only 0.0000001% of all humans on Earth think it's not ridiculous. 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Awesome, you go Anonymous. Just please don't stop until you have negated the Church completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]

A Point OverlookedEdit

The "Church" misuses copyright in the context of its tax-exempt status. In other words, it claims copyright over events and people it claims are real. If you have a site that talks about Xenu, for example, they'll come at you for copyright infringement, saying they own the copyright to Xenu, but their tax-exept status relies on the fact that they beleive Xenu is real. When they claim copyright over Xenu, then they are admitting that he is fictional. Get it? They say that Xenu was around 75 million years ago. If that is true, like CoS claims, then Xenu is in the public domain. To suggest that he is not clearly means that the CoS realizes that what it's selling is fiction, violating its tax-exept status. It is contradictory and illegal. Any true war against the Orgs must involve seeking to revoke their tax exemption. Sincerely, XenuLover666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]


I have to give kudos to 4chan/ebaumsworld/whoever is in charge for actually having the bravado to do this. 12:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]

While I certainly agree that everyone has a right to free speech, it strikes me that this latest attack on Scientology is just that. It represents a somewhat satirical, certainly chaotic disruption of the Church of Scientology's attempts to subvert the free speech of others through the abuse of copyright and libel laws. Just in case anyone doesn't know the story of Scientology's inception, here it is. Back in the fifties, the Department of Defense (or was it Naval intelligence...actually, I think it was) sent two agents, Eliphas Levi and L. Ron Hubbard to Cal Tech, to infiltrate a branch of the Ordo Templi Orientis, which happened to contain a large number of scientists who had worked on projects such as the Manhattan Project. The government was concerned that these scientists were being innapropriately manipulated by this Masonic group. What agent Hubbard learned during his time in the O.T.O. directly led to his interest in creating a religion that would maximize all of the best manipulative tactics of the most succesful cults and religions of the last few millenia. He organized this information into a book that would later take the form of "Dianetics". During its infancy, this book was meant to be a sort of treatise on how to use religion to manipulate people and to make money. Scientology does both of these things with a perversely admirable flair. Can you believe these people? Scientology is run by exactly the kind of people who should be opposed by freethinkers everywhere. The last thing the world needs is another organization manipulating a misinformed populace. If anyone deserves to have their freedom of speech curtailed (not that anyone does, but hopefully you get my point), it is just these types of predatory manipulating scumsuckers. I say next time they go after sub-prime mortgage lenders, or maybe the Catholics. Hail Eris,

         -The Sacred Chao  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[] 



Voice of anonymous matched to recording of Xenu??

Scientology Issues Statement Condemning Anonymous, Unconfirmed Sources, (Satire)

"Note the stilted, mechanical, almost Borg-like quality to the voice," stated Cruise. "Sea Org has, with 99% certainty, matched the voice of the narrator to archival recordings of Xenu in our possession.

Funny stuff. Wilhelm 21:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[]

More Off-topic comedy
The Church of the Jedi has a new hope,, January 27, 2008.
Hehe, Jedi. That's gotta be one awesome Sci-Fi based religion. Cirt 16:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Members of the Rebel Alliance launch internet attacks on the Dark Side (Scientology and Tom Cruise)
Even more Jedi stuff! This is classic. Cirt 01:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]

New base of operationsEdit Tn5421 01:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[]

i think its a good way to tell the people of america and the rest of the world that scientology is not a religion. its a way to raise money from people who are weak and disapointed in life. this people think that scientology help them to get better and smarter.

i´m from germany.and scientology is trying for many years to be seen as a religion in my country.but the german gouvernment denied them the term religion. and thats the right way.

free speech is a good thing,but not in the way scientology or other "religions" like them use it!!!

i hope that anonymus take as many actions against scientology as possible.

dont let them frighten you.there are many who think like you!!!go on —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]

confusing a religious organization with the religionEdit

It is a pity that many people are under the false impression that a despicable action commited by a religious organisation or person is in keeping with the religion they (supposedly) are forwarding.

It isn't solely the case with Scientology. It is also the case with Islam, Catholicism and others.

I can understand attacks on the church, but not the relgion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Converging against despotsEdit

I wish this type of action would be taken against the Philippines' shamelessly CORRUPT government, manipulated by its First Un-Gentleman Mr. Mike Arroyo whose greed is without bounds, yet continues to be untouchable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Way to go Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]

I am amazed that groups that are there to oppose scientology would be so critical of Anonymous' war efforts. Seems to me that those very groups were in it because it seemed "cool". Much like the war on terror, it seems that the war on scientology will die down when people get bored or it's no longer "hip". Disgusting don't you think?

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -

 Feh.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[] 

Scientology pulled it in on themselvesEdit

lts about time militant scientologist are put in check regarding abusing ex members and people they perceive as enemies.l was never a scientologist but some within that organisation targeted me and my business years ago and in my opinion l believe they felt they were above the law so lm glad to hear that there are people out there willing to speak out against victims of this sometimes very dangerous cult.04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Haha, Scientology is a JokeEdit

I honestly don't care who brings Scientology to its knees. I have done a lot of online research of Anonymous and Scientology within the past two days, and I've found this to say:

Scientology is a cult that enslaves its members, scams people into paying thousands and thousands of dollars to become one of them, and threatens those with lawsuits and violence who oppose them and their beliefs.

If Scientology is not a cult, explain why they are so desperate to shut people up. If Scientology is not a cult, explain why people MUST pay an enormous amount of money just be part of this “religion”. If Scientology is not a cult, explain why they must control their own members to preach their so called religion without question.

If you are a Scientologist reading this, wake up and smell the coffee. You are being fooled. You are being scammed. The leaders of Scientology do not care about you or the beliefs that you cherish. They care about money and political power. For the sake of freedom, for the sake of your own sanity, and for the sake of free speech please save yourself from finical and moral destruction. Continue believing what you like, but do not contribute your money and energy to power hungry scum. Do not waste your time with Tom Cruise or his unintelligent lackeys.

Go ahead, try to disprove me, but no religion should force itself upon its congregation. No religion should force its members to preach its message without a single word. No religion should forcefully steal money from its hard working people.

- From a Person Who Cares —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]


Finally —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[]

GO ANONYMOUS!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

YouTube plays their gameEdit

February 28th 2008 - deletes the video from their site "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation". Presumably they have caved in to Scientology pressure or the video has just been deleted by Scientologists or their friends working there. Anything else is not feasible as this video was one of YouTube's most ranked, most watched and most commented upon. What a shame that free speech has been gagged yet again by these people. And why does YouTube play their game???

Anonymous Shadow—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

I am a cientolegestEdit

dunt mak fun of us we aint bad so much, dunt mak ZenU madd or he wil keel u wit laz0r of deth....or I wil tak ur fre speeck away frum u..

           sincerorly, 13 yer ol' cientolegestest,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[] 
I see the Church has a high-quality education system. :P --Brian McNeil / talk 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Anonymous and ScientologyEdit

From my book "The Plain Truth about God" at and Amazon books.

    • I first got interested in religion when I was a young teenaged recruit for Scientology in 1967.

I quickly caught on that it was a scam. Then a few weeks later L. Ron Hubbard himself came to Toronto from his boat in the Caribbean. (Sea-Org) I overheard him talking to one of the other guys about some new tenets they were going to introduce to the faithful.

The guy said, “Ron, we can’t tell them that! It will never fly, these people aren’t completely stupid you know!” To which Hubbard replied, “Let’s just see how stupid they really are!” (By the way - Hubbard might be dead - but I’ll bet he’s still laughing his ass off!)

Just so you know. ----Allan W Janssen —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Hi the Banks are the 666 of today mate —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[]


Screw Scientology and tom cruise —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[]

go anonymousEdit

Continue to send trojans and do DoS attacks on this bullshit religion scientology!!!!!!!!!!!! XDDD —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[]

its the truthEdit

CoS is a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[]


we are the los purple bandits and we joined the cause we are with you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[]


if you actually knew what the church of scientology is all about im am very sure you wouldnt be doing this..##

i hope you understand that what you are doing is helping churches become greater because you are telling people absolute rubbish about the organisation and they know this is people go into the churches to understand for themselves what it is and actually think its an amazing experence and so carry on that is how us as a group got involved in the church thank you .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[]

you lot are soooooo sad tryna be allll bad protestin get a life you losers!!!!

fair nuff u protest about war on drugs but scientology

sort it out!!

please how sad can u get have you got nothin better to do????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[]

Says the person posting on a wiki page. Hmmm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[]

Anonymous is being blocked!!!Edit

My name is of no importance. But I am a suporter of anonymous. I have recently discovered that looking up anonymous on the computers at my school are against the rules and could land you a suspension. I am disgusted by the restrictions on free speech and idea searching that the school system I am in has placed upon the future members of Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[]

That is not a restriction on free speech. Who says that you school has to provide you with any internet access at all? No one. --SVTCobra 18:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[]

I have but one thing to say: \o/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[]

spelling errorEdit

organization is spelled wrong in one of the first paragraphs—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Anonymous, that is what we are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[]

woooh anon rules scientology nt so much —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[]

The Scientologists can't winEdit

It's funny to watch them flail against a group that repeatedly makes them look like idiots. They can't win, they can cry religious persecution all they want, but the word is out now. They can't fight back because their target is everyone, and no one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[]


you cannot change a persons opinion. If you are a group of hackers just from the internet then you wont beable to stop it. Scientoloy has a right to belief and religious freedom as does any other religion. The sooner you get that through your heads the better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

tl;dr above user is a faggot

how can I join this anonymous?Edit

Seriously. I wanna kill a scientologist. 21:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[]

you do not "join" anonymous, you simply get in We are not a group or an organization but an alliance, a legion simply call yourself anonymous and join our protest in secret We do not harm scietologists, we simply harm the credibility of the faith. We are anonymous. We never forgive. We never forget. Lisa Mcphearson schould not be forgotten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notagroupbutanalliance (talkcontribs) 00:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[]

Church of Sc....wthEdit

This peope need to be put to death. It will rise to this, or they will control us, and bring all kinds of wicked stuff on us, or we will get rid of them, forewer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Don't be silly. It is just some stupid space-alien believing brainwashing cult. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and many of the crazier things they expect people to believe after they've parted with huge sums of money have been exposed. Antics like Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's sofa also help to make the "church" look less credible. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[]

"anonymous" duplicityEdit

Freedom of speech is a worthy cause, no need for anonymity. Religion bashing is quite popular - why hide your identities? Why not show yourselves and fight freedom of speech everywhere. It is so strange that 'anonymous' claims to hold dear freedom of speech while simultaneously fearing freedom of expression.

I actually never followed this movement until the westboro babtist church incident. I think what they are doing is great. Im not a hacker myself just a programmer who understands what is going on in this world as much as the next guy.