Is Anonymous a terrorist group
- Thread starter lemiel14n3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
'Tis true that's it a broad definition and vague, but that is essentially what a terrorist is. I don't think that, let's say, the American Army are terrorists because they use terror as a weapon but that's because my perception is changed to see them as the "good guys" while someone that is for something that can kill a lot of innocents is the "evil guys". But if we asked Terrorists if the American Army was a terrorist organization based on the definition, then they would, maybe, say yes.senataur said:
No.
1. Anon isn't a group - it's a label we give to any anonymous action on the internet, even when it doesn't involve /b/ at all.
2. Terrorists use violence/threats of to further political goals. Do I need to explain this?
2a. Utilizing the term "terrorist" to describe hacking, and sometimes simply flooding sites, is pushing the term so far that we might as well get it over with and start calling anyone we dislike a terrorist.
1. Anon isn't a group - it's a label we give to any anonymous action on the internet, even when it doesn't involve /b/ at all.
2. Terrorists use violence/threats of to further political goals. Do I need to explain this?
2a. Utilizing the term "terrorist" to describe hacking, and sometimes simply flooding sites, is pushing the term so far that we might as well get it over with and start calling anyone we dislike a terrorist.
Under the actual definition of terrorism, no, they aren't. Now, I don't know if the American government has a different definition than the real definition, but if they do, it is entirely possible that they would fall under that. Also, due to the general nature of Anonymous, a sort of drop in, drop out, union of real life trolls (even if they are trolling for good causes) it would be very difficult to definitively tie someone to the acts of "terrorism".
Thats pretty much how i feel when people use the term a bit too far in the news, papers etc.MaxwellEdison said:
As a group no. Most of the individuals, or at least the ones you hear about, can probably be labeled terrorists. Most of them probably aren't worth the time and resources it would take to catch them anyway.
Thanks for explaining that to me. I've been stepping on eyes and ears all day. I was wondering who left them here. Jeez.vrbtny said:
Anonymous is many things, but it is not a terrorist group. To the best of my knowledge they do not indiscriminately employ violence against civilians to achieve their political or ideological objectives. They don't like Scientology, but they like Wikileaks; however, they have not used violence against anyone to further these causes. Until the body count starts piling up, they are pranksters at best.
Anonymous is a title, not a group. It's not the same people every time there is a DDoS attack or a raid, it's not the same people that organize the operations... it's just a title for people to use to any effect they wish.
Regardless, they are what you might call terrorists, if terrorists are just groups that governments don't like(I mean... that's definitely what it seems like). This is despite the intentions often found in Anonymous operations, those being advocation of freedom of speech, expression, and information.
Regardless, they are what you might call terrorists, if terrorists are just groups that governments don't like(I mean... that's definitely what it seems like). This is despite the intentions often found in Anonymous operations, those being advocation of freedom of speech, expression, and information.
Anonymous is only a terrorist if they cause you terror, which they shouldn't. Anonymous is a direct democracy, even more advanced than our modern day republics. The force of their attacks is exactly correlated to the number of people who wish to participate. Anyone can be anonymous: there is no application, there is no password. It is just a group of people with similar ideals who choose to participate.
This is true democracy. This is true freedom of speech.
This is true democracy. This is true freedom of speech.
Most of the stuff they do isn't terrorism, per se, but they slipped over the line when they decided to dos attack e-commerce sites out of protest of incarceration of someone [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105954-Anonymous-Declares-Infowar-on-Wikileaks-Opponents]. Basically, if you do a political action to which you can assign it a lot of monetary damage, congratulations, you've committed a qualified terrorist act.
Funny thing about anonymous, though, if the FBI did catch some specific people behind those DOS attacks and jail them, they'd probably be pointing and laughing at their incarcerated former anonymous as a source of epic LOLs. They're not really a single unified movement, more an delinquent outgrowth of Internet youth culture, one that generally thinks tragedy is funny.
Funny thing about anonymous, though, if the FBI did catch some specific people behind those DOS attacks and jail them, they'd probably be pointing and laughing at their incarcerated former anonymous as a source of epic LOLs. They're not really a single unified movement, more an delinquent outgrowth of Internet youth culture, one that generally thinks tragedy is funny.
Ah, but terrorist is used as a label quite often, there's quite a lot of American Congress members who supported Irish 'freedom fighters' but hate Islamic 'terrorists'. Rhetoric and use of the word beyond simple definition is important.feather240 said:
But what does 'terror' entail? Does it mean threats of violence, acts of violence, the fear of violence as a way to maintain order? Your definition doesn't work for me due to this minor detail. By this definition, the legitimate use of force present in governments is also a form of terrorism, as it systematically uses fear of imprisonment or worse to maintain order and ensure that people follow the law, i.e. an act of coercion. This 'precise definition' has holes.
After a google search, I noticed you took that definition from wikipedia. Did you also notice that the exact next line says that there is no universally agreed on criminal definition of terrorism? Or in the next paragraph, where it states that some definitions include concepts like war while others don't? I fail to see a precise definition present.
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die." -Mel Brooksgeldonyetich said:
Once again, it is a precise word. Using a word with a clear definition to label something in a certain light in formal unbiased discussion is misuse of it. You complained about it not having a solid definition, however criminal definition would be based around how legislation defines it, not the literal meaning of the word. Search some dictionaries, tell me what you get.Blind Sight said:
I've heard very few stories about Anonymous acts, and yeah most of them are things that only show how low humanity can go when identities are hidden. I have also heard at least one story of an old war veteran with few friends or family and a birthday on the way. Anonymous took up the call and sent him cards, gifts, and even strangers went by to wish him the best. Even if that was considered illegal, it was still probably one of the rare moments that a person can smile and say they're proud of what strangers can do for one another. Those were the good ones, though. More often than not it will be a group of hotheads who find something they don't like or a person they feel should be punished and turn into a mob.
