Everyone here understands that Anon is a completely ambiguous "group," right?

lulsec was a group of hackers that had the brilliant idea to use the common activist as cover for their protests, while simultaneously inspiring said activists off their respective couches.

Eventually lulsec dissolved somewhat, because they realized putting a name on their group just gave the MSM a handle with which to slam hacktivists.

Years later, Anonymous is still thrown around, but it only persists as a pseudonym for "persons unknown." The media saying "who is this hacker called anonymous" is pretty close to us folks asking who the Illuminati's leader is.

Outside of the Anon videos where threats and demands are made, and these threats are then backed up, I'd venture to say the actual power-players behind lulsec have long-since distanced themselves from this throwaway term.

My point being, everyone is anonymous until they sign their name at the bottom of their message, so a twitter post (while accurate in this instance) is extremely unlikely to have anything even indirectly to do with the real players that used the throwaways "lulsec" and "anonymous."

This was obvious - the Chinese market was crashing the night before. In normal market conditions this SHOULD have caused the NYSE to drop significantly. In fact, it was about to open down several %, before the plug was pulled, probably to prevent just that.

Sorry I made statements (the quite obvious ones I might add) that one possible option to just "exit" QE etc was to claim "we were hacked" for a long while it looked like the target for the "dupe attack on self" would be blamed in those evil Russians.

Who are "anonymous"? they are the NSA if you want them to be.