Is Anonymous a terrorist group

[lemiel14n3]

Anonymous has always been, by it's very nature, difficult to pin down. More amorphous mass than actual group, there have been multiple acts attributed to the unnamed collective. From attacks on opponents of wikileaks [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105954-Anonymous-Declares-Infowar-on-Wikileaks-Opponents] to the recent mailing of child pornography [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107078-4chan-Member-Gets-Jail-Time-For-Sending-Dirty-Pics-To-School]. Anonymous' actions are varied, fulfilling purposes both noble and nefarious, as well as down right weird. The fact does reamin though that the majority, if not the entirety of their actions were illegal, regardless of intention. And governments all over have started paying attention to the actions of this surprisingly organized group. Action has already been taken [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/106549-FBI-Raids-Texas-Company-in-Hunt-for-Anonymous]

So tell me your opinion escapists, could anonymous be considered a terrorist organization? Are governments justified in pursuing the legion. Will they ever be successful?

 

[Dark Knifer]

Well, I don't think terrorists were out to promote freedom of speech and get publicity. No, anonymous are mostly just self-righteous internet trolls.

 

[Eumersian]

No, they are not. Not all of them do the attacks. They also do not target those with whom they have a beef for the purpose of creating mass panic. They are making a point, if extreme at some times, but not in the way of killing people, or poisoning water or things like that.

The "group" is not a terrorist group. People in the group that have done some pretty horrible things may be considered terrorists in some way, but in general, no they are not.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Yes, the things they did count as web terrorism.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Nope, they're just a bunch of kids who've watched V for Vendetta too many times.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

No, but they are terrifying... in a sad kind of way...

 

[vrbtny]

Watch what you say, anonymous has eyes and ears everywhere....

 

[DeadlyYellow]

self-righteous

This being a perfect term that can describe any terrorist organization.

And in the literal sense, yes they are terrorists. Their invasive mastery of the internet makes them a far more personalized threat whether it be used to destroy an individual and the neighboring community, or disrupt online business. Not to mention the Big Brother like status from being composed of nigh insurmountable eyes-and-ears.

 

[astrav1]

No, they have not killed anyone to my knowledge. Although they do have terrorist tendencies.

 

[zehydra]

Anonymous has no goal, and all terrorist organizations have some kind of end goal that they try to reach through acts of terrorism.

 

[YawningAngel]

Anonymous doesn't aim to create terror, it aims to create attention. Were it a corporate entity, it would freely acknowledge that most people, and indeed most companies, aren't particularly scared of the consequences of defying it, not least because its utter lack of an organised structure means that one would be hard-pressed to placate it in any case. Instead, by doing irritating (if not hugely disruptive) things, it generates press about the issue. If people are opposed to what's happening, then this may serve to bring their attention to it and help provoke public opposition. If nobody gives a toss, Anonymous has neither the resources nor the resolve to prosecute a campaign only it cares about (though since all its 'decisions' are by definition merely the consensus of a particular cross-section of society, it's never likely to champion an unpopular cause anyway).

 

[DroothR]

I'd say that they are not "terrorists" at all.

They certainly are vigilantes, though.

 

[viranimus]

Yeah, captioning cats, and declaring war on snow.. these are the hallmarks of every great terrorist organization.

At best Anon is just the voice of people who are too afraid to speak up and defend themselves, at worst there just a bunch of kids with too much time on their hands.

 

[Altorin]

I've written out some scathing things about Anonymous a couple times in this box and deleted them because I was afraid of possible reprisal.

So, yeah.

They are.

Technically calling them a terrorist organization is a lol, both because there is no "organization", and the goal of the movement is free speech and net neutrality, but the individual zealous members who do cause problems for private people are certainly terrorists.

the funny thing being, from what I know about the movement, anyone who claims to "be Anonymous" is voiding any actual association, so the terrorist members who take a personal stake in the movement and send out threatening emails and causing havoc "in the name of Anonymous" are themselves working directly against Anonymous.

 

[Blue_vision]

I'd say yes. As a cohesive group (not that you could say that about anonymous,) Anonymous has committed a wide range of attacks. Some of them may be justifiable and a force of good in this world, some are simply not. And ether way, they are trying to accomplish their goals by spreading panic. They may support wikileaks, but did cyber attacks on credit card companies actually acomplish anything? They're saying "don't fuck with us," which is hardly constructive, especially when we're supposed to be showing the morality of wikileaks.

So as of their current actions, yes they are terrorists. Trying to further their cause by inconsiderately attacking others to create chaos is pretty much their mission statement, and that's just when they've got a respectable cause. If they actually got out and legitimately championed what they thought was right in a reasonable, logical manner, then I might revoke my opinion. But there's hardly been any of that.

 

[Mariner]

They are Chaotic Neutral.

They are terrorists by the thinest of threads, as they typically don't target those they don't have a vendetta against

 

[BanthaFodder]

hm... well, by definition, a Terrorist is someone who uses fear and threats to reach their goals/demands... but ANON has no goals... some men can't be bought, bullied, or reasoned with... some men just want to watch the world burn...

 

[Dark Knifer]

self-righteous

This being a perfect term that can describe any terrorist organization.

And in the literal sense, yes they are terrorists. Their invasive mastery of the internet makes them a far more personalized threat whether it be used to destroy an individual and the neighboring community, or disrupt online business. Not to mention the Big Brother like status from being composed of nigh insurmountable eyes-and-ears.

In a sense they are terrorists, but they are different from the ones we usually associate the word 'terrorist' with. Although I thought part of being a terrorist was to take a more violent approach to things. I guess the word has a broader definition then I thought.

 

[Lyx]

Are anon witches? Attempting to give a damn......... please standby.......

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Any symbolic violent or disruptive act could be considered terrorism. According to the US government anyway. Which by their own definition means that they have committed terrorist acts.