Slashdot.org has linked to a site called Milenio, saying that Anonymous has already begun backing down from their threat. Unfortunately, I only read English and can’t give any details from the article.
If true then … well, that didn’t last long!
It probably took all of that long for one of the cartel’s customer service representatives to reach out to one of them on their unlisted, hacked, cell phone at home and ask how he could be of service.
Here is a rough translation of the same article. It doesn’t help too much to clarify anything. According to it, some members still claim the operation is still on while others claim it was never on and that they only announce such things through Twitter, never YouTube. Yet others say it was on at one time, but now it’s off. Later one who had said it was off erased those tweets and added another message saying it was back on.
Its anonymous, people. They don’t exactly have a chain of command and they have no idea what the others are up to and any particular time. Don’t look for straight answers.
Ah, the typical “clear as mud” AnonOp then. Thanks. 
Another link
- Go to Google.
- Search “Anonymous”.
- How many related articles are there for Anonymous vs. the Zetas?
:eek:
What would be awesome is if the CIA or NSA was to pretend to be Anonymous and post the information.
I agree with BlackKnight.
I would also add that Anonymous is not exactly a group of vigilantes who are fighting the good fight. There are no leaders, and individual motives change on a whim. They are absolutely chaotic neutral. They do things just to prove they can; or if nothing else, for a laugh. They aren’t scared of people getting killed in the crossfire if it means they are accomplishing their ultimate goals. They’ve done a lot more than what’s been released, such as the Scientology Attack, things that have been done in other continents.
Two examples would be collecting and releasing dox on animal torturers like the marine in Iraq who laughed as he threw a puppy off a cliff, or the nurse in China who crushed a kitten to death with stilettos. There was very little consequence for the terrible things they did (they lost their jobs but were otherwise unpunished for their actions) but by releasing comprehensive information on them (and sometimes their friends or their family), any person with internet access can seek these people out and pursue them (in whatever way they will) for what they did. That might not like seem like much but cyberbulling can often go into the extreme with such an immense melting pot of people and emotion.
I think it’s important to remember that Anonymous is not a small collective of people in one place but a vast network of people in countries all over the world.
:cough: And that’s my two cents.
So, it was a draw?
Well, let’s review: Anonymous ran headlong into a brick wall, fell down, got back up and stumbled away. We still don’t know if a kidnapping even happened or if the subsequent release really happened, or if either did, whether or not the zeta cartel had anything to do with it in the first place.
Now either way any kid in Mexico who happens to be sitting in front of a computer at the wrong time and place might fall under the scrutiny of some very dangerous people. I guess that could be called a draw. It had as much impact on organized crime in Mexico as hacking the CIA ‘home page’ had on US intelligence operations.
Or alternatively: Anonymous trolls. Pope still Catholic. News at 11.
These two sentences appear to be at odds. If we don’t even know if there was a kidnapping in the first place, it’s impossible to say that Anonymous “ran headlong into a brick wall”. Maybe they did. Maybe the kidnapping story was a cover for a different goal, which they achieved.
If we take Anonymous’ story at face value (and I’m not saying we should), then their threat worked. If we discount their story, then we’re left with only speculation about what their real goals were, and therefore can’t say whether they were successful or not.
I have to agree with posters saying this can only end badly. The Zetas like killing, are very good at it (trained at the School of Americas, you know). They have tortured, disemboweled, and hung from an overpass in Nuevo Laredo a young woman already , with a sign saying her crime was “posting funny things on the internet”. The are utterly indifferent about whether the victim had anything to do with whatever they are annoyed about.
What they’re going to do should have been obvious to the idiots at Anonymous: they’re going to kidnap a few of the nearest teenagers, torture them to death, and tell Anonymous that they’ll go on doing it every day until An. shuts up. They will shut up, but it’ll be a little late from the victims’ point of view.
They aren’t at odds. We don’t know if there was a kidnapping in the first place. If there was, we don’t know if they have released the person, and if any of it happened we don’t know if the zetas were behind it. At the same time, Anonymous has exposed themselves and countless others to the actual wrath of the real cartels or any number of low level thugs who work for them directly or indirectly.
Whether or not the claims were accurate to begin with, the news they have made have now genuinely endangered Anonymous, any of their supporters, and any innocent people who are mistakenly associated with them. That is what I call running headlong into a brick wall. Achieving nothing and paying a high cost for it.
As noted by **Mapache **the cartels have no sense of humor about these things and, unlike Anonymous, when they decide to go after someone they do a lot more than vandalize their free home page and taunt them on Facebook about it.
They have? The absurdity is considering Anonymous an actual organization.
[LIST=0]
[li]Have you ever spent time at 4chan?[/li]
[li]Do you know what rule 34 is?[/li]
[li]Do you know what a meme is?[/li]
[li]Have you ever camwhored?[/li]
[li]Do you know who grinman is?[/li]
[li]Do you think I’m trolling by calling him grinman?[/li]
[li]Will you be trolling by telling me he isn’t called grinman?[/li]
[li]Tits or gtfo?[/li]
[li]Cracky or Rabbit?[/li][/LIST]
If you answered yes to any of the above and want to be part of anonymous, then congratulations, you are Anonymous.
CrazyHorse, you continue to assume facts not in evidence, as well as contradict yourself.
Example:
“Whether or not the claims were accurate to begin with, the news they have made have now genuinely endangered Anonymous, any of their supporters, and any innocent people who are mistakenly associated with them. That is what I call running headlong into a brick wall. Achieving nothing and paying a high cost for it.”
If the claims were not true, then we cannot say they achieved nothing, because we don’t know what exactly they were trying to accomplish.
If the claims were true, they achieved something.
You want to claim that they accomplished nothing while also claiming we don’t know what, if anything, they were trying to accomplish. This confuses and infuriates me.
Your arguments in this thread (that it wouldn’t be dangerous for anyone outside of Mexico to make public threats against the zeta cartel, that Anonymous may be trying to achieve some unknown goal unrelated to their notion that their friend was kidnapped, that their friend might have been kidnapped by the zetas and then released due to their online threats, etc.) are all as stupid and naive as Anonymous themselves seem to be.
You can be infuriated to your heart’s content but you are still dead wrong with every syllable you have uttered in this thread.
You are apparently misunderstanding my statement anyway. The zetas almost certainly didn’t kidnap their friend, but if they did, they almost certainly wouldn’t release him based on these threats. Yet the people who made these allegations and threats against them are now in genuine danger as could be anyone they associate with.
It doesn’t matter if Anonymous is a legitimate organization as they allege themselves to be, or just a bunch of stupid script kiddies who can barely hack a free home page, as they seem to be, they have still called out a genuine, authentic. crime organization who aren’t just a bunch of hype and facebook bravado. Anonymous has achieved nothing except to endanger themselves whoever they are. Your counterarguments to this defy all reason. They don’t infuriate me but they amuse me and make me wonder what your interest is in this subject obviously having no knowledge of either Anonymous or Mexican organized crime.
This piece pretty well sums it up:
I don’t know where you live but I live in Mexico right in the heart of Zeta country. I don’t think you have even a basic, rudimentary understanding of the situation and it’s dynamics, and what is plausible, likely, or possible regarding these claims. But I can tell you that whether or not the cartels had anything to do with the alleged kidnapping, the response of Anonymous endangers lives.
You seem to think that as long as Zetas had nothing to do with it, then it is a contradiction to say the zetas might seek revenge, but that too simply illustrates how clueless you really are about the situation. It isn’t a contradiction to say whatever it was they thought they were trying to accomplish, we can say with 100% certainty what they did accomplish was endangering themselves and others. We can also say with 100% certainty the tactic they chose could not have accomplished anything more than that, regardless of the truth of the kidnapping, who did it, if the person was released, or if there even was one.
Yes and so are all of these poor slobs, and anyone else “associated” with them. I’m going to go out on a limb and say they are probably much less happy about having their pictures in the papers since “OpCartel” took flight and crashed.
Anonymous doesn’t even exist. A bunch of individuals exist, and occasionally one of them manages to do something interesting online. Whenever that happens, that interesting act is proclaimed as being the work of Anonymous, but that doesn’t really mean anything.
It does mean something if someone operating under that moniker takes on organized crime cartels. If person A in London does something interesting online, person B in Mexico City might pay dearly for it if both of them consider themselves to be Anonymous and are known for doing things online under that moniker. It doesn’t matter if there is any leadership or structure. Just claiming the association during their own independent endeavors would be enough to make any of them targets if a cartel decided to send a message to any who would claim to be ‘Anonymous’.
So a 46 year old uber hacker in Sweden takes on a cartel and says he is ‘Anonymous’. Then a 16 year old in Mexico City is exposed by a local paper as the “Anonymous member” who hacked into some classmates homepage and covered it with childish profanity… You can see where this is going. If a newspaper calls each of them ‘Anonymous members’ it doesn’t matter what Anonymous is, that’s good enough to make an example of them both, which will be covered in the same paper later.