Anonymous has failed in its alleged attempt to take down the New York Stock Exchange. Anonymous had supposedly said it would “erase” the NYSE from the internet. Now it's under dispute whether Anonymous even made a threat at all.
The result of the "attack" was pretty anticlimactic, as Bloomberg reports:
The exchange's online security boss E.J. Hilbert told Bloomberg the attempt was "like four nine-pound weaklings running into a Sumo wrestler."
"If you don't have enough people behind an event like this, it's just a spike in traffic as far as NYSE is concerned," he said.
There’s another side to this, too. Evidently someone was against the idea from the start:
“Is it too early for me to say ‘I told you so?’” someone called AnonNep posted on Twitter at 4:30 p.m. “I just hope to high heaven none of you bloody fools get arrested for this.”
All very interesting if taken at face value, but there could be a lot more in the works than just a failed attack.
This is Anonymous’ first major failure, and it’s also uncharacteristic that the threat and the attack were so closely linked.
Even more interestingly, there’s a dispute about whether there was even a bona fide threat made by Anonymous, as reported by Bloomberg on October 5.
Disputed Threat The threat been disputed by some members of Anonymous, who said on Twitter that it hadn’t been sanctioned. A similar dispute occurred over an announcement in July that Anonymous would attack Facebook on Nov. 5, 2011.
A posting on Anonnews.org said it was almost impossible to verify the operation because of the nature of Anonymous as an organization “free of hierarchical structure.”
The potential attack on NYSE “may or may not be a false flag operation initiated by authorities in order to discredit Anonymous and Occupy Wall Street,” the post said.
That’s not quite as weird as it may sound. It seems that the NYSE and NASDAQ systems aren’t “web facing”, meaning they’re not directly associated with the net. That’s not necessarily a 100% foolproof security measure, but it’s interesting to note that Anonymous didn’t detect it. It would be pretty damn hard to overlook.
So- Do we have yet another fossilized, 1950s style Illuminazi attempt to smear activists, or do we have Anonymous covering its own tail in case the attempt failed?
Given the staggering levels of open hostility to Occupy Main Street in our incorruptible, virginal mainstream media, to whom truth is sacred, organized crime is non-existent and little children are safe on our streets, I’d say the former, rather than the latter. Something definitely stinks here. It’s quite impossible that Anonymous wouldn’t have known there was no direct access from the net to the trading systems. Setting up a major attack, with warning, in a few days isn’t exactly the standard Anonymous operational approach, either. To penetrate major systems with heavy security like the average financial institution isn’t easy, and can’t be done on the spur of the moment.
Nor is it likely that Anonymous could have been unaware that major financial systems also have major backups and multiple levels of penetration security, internal and external. So it’s more likely that Wall Street has decided to conjure up a non-existent attack to add that aura of invincibility to its brazen, sickening culture which has trashed so many millions of lives. If so, it’s also in keeping with the “insult the intelligence of the public at every possible opportunity” approach common to the Elite Enema part of the social pages.
The pity of it is that the Wall Street animals will think they’ve yet again put something over on the public. The joke is that they may have put into someone’s head the idea of a real attack.
Just one more bit of information, you primitive, conceited, amateur stage managing bastards- You've already let a cat out of the bag. I won't tell you which one.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com