[citation][nom]Snerious[/nom]The last paragraph is just pure speculation. Where did you get that info? What kind of journalism is this?[/citation]
They said that it was a good chance that a rouge *member* of Anon was a likely possibility as the *attacker*. Considering recent events and there having been plenty of such events, it's fairly likely. Tom's simply stated what they believe, based on solid evidence, to have been a likely attacker if FB's problems were caused by an attack.