This is a good learning experience for Anonymous. They've never faced an organization that has no qualms about kidnapping and brutally murdering them. Maybe there will be a change in their tactics?
At the same time, Anon publishing information about the Zetas means the other cartels do their dirty work for them.
Anon can't go head to head with a drug cartel, it's true, especially not on their terms. But let's not pretend that Anon was a paper tiger in all this.
Many aspects of this story sound too good (too narratively neat, that is) to be true.
Is there any evidence that this is anything other than a big hoax orchestrated by Anonymous for publicity and/or lulz? Any third-party confirmation that any part of this story is true, or are we just basing everything off what Anonymous has told us?
I mean, any evidence that this unnamed guy was ever kidnapped, that he was ever released, or that Anonymous ever actually had any information about Los Zetas in the first place? Just wondering, not accusing anyone of lying, just not entirely confident that "Anonymous" is a trustworthy source.
Well, unless this was done by someone posing as Anonymous.
The hostage returned with a message claiming that the kidnappers said any exposure of information resulting in the outing of a gangster would result in the demise of Anonymous 10-fold.
I.e. why would Anonymous tell themselves to shut up in such a convoluted way?
The hostage returned with a message claiming that the kidnappers said any exposure of information resulting in the outing of a gangster would result in the demise of Anonymous 10-fold.
Where's the evidence that there ever was a hostage?
One of the weird things I thought about was what if the Arizona Police department that got screwed by Anons decides to release information they know about Zetas as if they were members of Anonymous?
I'm sure that at least a few law enforcement officers may have felt less safe once their information was released, why wouldn't they return the favor?
Anyway, I agree that the story reads more like fiction than fact, I suppose only time will tell.
I am surprised this threat could silence Anonymous. I was expecting some twisted counter threat from them along the lines of: 'you kill about 10 people every week anyway so for every 10 people that are killed we will release 100 more names'. So if Anonymous release 1 name, then the Zetas kill 10, then Anonymous release 100 names, then the Zetas have obligated themselves to kill 1000 people, then Anonymous release 10000. Now, in quite short order the Zetas have to kill 100,000 people. Which is a lot, even for them.
You are assuming that anonymous have information on 10, 100 and 10000 people belonging to the zetas. If that was the case, this could have unfolded quite differently.
(by this I don't mean that the claim by anonymous that they have information regarding the identity of Zeta members is a lie - I just mean that the information that they do have probably doesn't warrant a move such as the one you suggest)
This whole thing sounded so strange and unlike the MO of anyone associated with anonymous. I don't think I will speculate about what really happened (hoax, anon copycats, whatever) but I really doubt that there was much behind these claims.
It's amusing though, because they will still get credit for it, and that will further contribute to their mystique.
15 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 42.7 ms ] threadThere is no "anonymous". Everyone is "anonymous".
Anon can't go head to head with a drug cartel, it's true, especially not on their terms. But let's not pretend that Anon was a paper tiger in all this.
The Zetas actually released the guy? Wow!
Is there any evidence that this is anything other than a big hoax orchestrated by Anonymous for publicity and/or lulz? Any third-party confirmation that any part of this story is true, or are we just basing everything off what Anonymous has told us?
I mean, any evidence that this unnamed guy was ever kidnapped, that he was ever released, or that Anonymous ever actually had any information about Los Zetas in the first place? Just wondering, not accusing anyone of lying, just not entirely confident that "Anonymous" is a trustworthy source.
The hostage returned with a message claiming that the kidnappers said any exposure of information resulting in the outing of a gangster would result in the demise of Anonymous 10-fold.
I.e. why would Anonymous tell themselves to shut up in such a convoluted way?
Where's the evidence that there ever was a hostage?
I'm sure that at least a few law enforcement officers may have felt less safe once their information was released, why wouldn't they return the favor?
Anyway, I agree that the story reads more like fiction than fact, I suppose only time will tell.
(by this I don't mean that the claim by anonymous that they have information regarding the identity of Zeta members is a lie - I just mean that the information that they do have probably doesn't warrant a move such as the one you suggest)
It's amusing though, because they will still get credit for it, and that will further contribute to their mystique.