Yes the article attempting to determine if this had the signature of something "genuinely" anonymous demonstrates a clear void of space between the author and the point. An attack is a genuinely anonymous if it is anonymous and uses certain imagery. Clearly, the video and the UN hack are anonymous. Whether or not the police website going down was from them or not, who knows.
Whether the anonymous attack was perpetrated by American acktivists or whether it was perpetrated by state actors is a different question. But there's no point asking "is it genuinely anonymous"; rather, ask "was it genuinely instate disaffection or is it concocted interstate action". (They don't ask that question. They don't get close. But the only questions worth asking are this one and "who did it".)
I agree, but one friendly nit-pick: capitalized "Anonymous" is the hacktivist thing, and lower-case "anonymous" is the ordinary adjective. People acting as Anonymous are also anonymous, but not everyone acting anonymously is Anonymous.
Whether the anonymous attack was perpetrated by American acktivists or whether it was perpetrated by state actors is a different question. But there's no point asking "is it genuinely anonymous"; rather, ask "was it genuinely instate disaffection or is it concocted interstate action". (They don't ask that question. They don't get close. But the only questions worth asking are this one and "who did it".)