Is Anonymous a terrorist group

[feather240]

Under the actual definition of terrorism, no, they aren't.

...which is?

 

[Blind Sight]

What is terrorism? If terrorism is simply the act of threatening with violence, using violence or illegal methods to achieve your goals while attracting government attention, then congratulations, the entire American government was founded by terrorists. Define what terrorism is, and then get back to me about Anonymous.

The only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is perspective.

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." Freedom fighters are still, usually, terrorists. It isn't just a label, it's a word with a precise definition.

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.

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.

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.

"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die." -Mel Brooks

 

[feather240]

What is terrorism? If terrorism is simply the act of threatening with violence, using violence or illegal methods to achieve your goals while attracting government attention, then congratulations, the entire American government was founded by terrorists. Define what terrorism is, and then get back to me about Anonymous.

The only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is perspective.

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." Freedom fighters are still, usually, terrorists. It isn't just a label, it's a word with a precise definition.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

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.

 

[Hader]

Anon? Terrorists?

Well it makes sense, after all, who isn't a terrorist these days?




Seriously, no, not anon...anon promotes freedom of speech, and while they have some sneaky methods , it's nothing I would classify as 'terrorism'.

 

[Blind Sight]

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.

Ok well, fair enough, here I go:

The Oxford Dictionary defines it as "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." But the MacMillan Dictionary states that it's 'the use of violence to achieve political aims." Note that this definition completely negates the 'unofficial or unauthorized' clause present in the Oxford Dictionary, which makes this definition fundamentally different from the Oxford's. Webster's uses the same definition you and wikipedia used, once again, completely different from the other two, failing to to mention both its 'unofficial nature' as well as suggesting that it is a form of coercion, meaning that the MacMillan's definition of 'political aims' is negated because coercion can be used beyond politics to affect culture, social interaction, etc. Encarta simply calls it 'political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes'.

Tell me, do these definitions come off as consistant? Or do they in fact define terrorism in similiar, but at the same time varying ways? There is a massive difference between unofficial use of violence, and legitimate use of force. Oxford and the MacMillan's definitions end up describing it in a completely different way due to this simple change. Remember that terrorism (in its modern form) was originally a word used in the French Revolution to describe the Reign of Terror, which was caused by a legitimized government, not a rogue political group. Guess they didn't know the 'precise' definition either eh?

So how is Webster's definition more legitimate then the ones present in other dictionaries? Despite having some shared concepts, the little details in these definitions fundamentally change what the word means and entails. So even the literal definition of the word is largely in question.

 

[feather240]

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.

Ok well, fair enough, here I go:

The Oxford Dictionary defines it as "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." But the MacMillan Dictionary states that it's 'the use of violence to achieve political aims." Note that this definition completely negates the 'unofficial or unauthorized' clause present in the Oxford Dictionary, which makes this definition fundamentally different from the Oxford's. Webster's uses the same definition you and wikipedia used, once again, completely different from the other two, failing to to mention both its 'unofficial nature' as well as suggesting that it is a form of coercion, meaning that the MacMillan's definition of 'political aims' is negated because coercion can be used beyond politics to affect culture, social interaction, etc. Encarta simply calls it 'political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes'.

Tell me, do these definitions come off as consistant? Or do they in fact define terrorism in similiar, but at the same time varying ways? There is a massive difference between unofficial use of violence, and legitimate use of force. Oxford and the MacMillan's definitions end up describing it in a completely different way due to this simple change. Remember that terrorism (in its modern form) was originally a word used in the French Revolution to describe the Reign of Terror, which was caused by a legitimized government, not a rogue political group. Guess they didn't know the 'precise' definition either eh?

So how is Webster's definition more legitimate then the ones present in other dictionaries? Despite having some shared concepts, the little details in these definitions fundamentally change what the word means and entails. So even the literal definition of the word is largely in question.

Well shit, you're right.

 

[Blind Sight]

snip

Well shit, you're right.

I salute you, sir, this has been a worthwhile debate. If I came off strong it's only because I study political science in university and international terrorism is one of my favourite topics haha.

 

[lemiel14n3]

I'm impressed by the amount of posts this little tread has garnered. They seem to be divided among a few points

Yes, they are
Yes, but they do it for good
Define terrorism
No, they do things, but they aren't terrorists
No, just no
and some jokes on the word anonymous

For my money I had seen some reference to the IRA as a parallel, and I think that is an appropriate line to draw. The Ira does its acts for unquestionably good causes, but their acts are still terroristic, and where the IRA explodes, Anonymous hacks.

I think the best thing to do for this argument is to draw a big line between the means and the end. Argue the means to determine which acts constitute terrorism, in this case, is coordinated cyber-attacks an act of terrorism or just an annoyance? And argue the ends to determine if Anonymous as a "group" are terrorists, or just a bunch of dudes with time on their hands.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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

ive READ V for vendetta a dozen times and im not for raiding your boards

That's why I said a bunch of kids and not all kids.
Try better next time.

 

[Bohemian Waltz]

No, but they are in fact an internet hate machine.

 

[Zigot66]

Under the actual definition of terrorism, no, they aren't.

...which is?

Well an act of terrorism, that is real terrorism, not domestic terrorism, there is a very important distinction to be made there, involves one foreign non-government group to attack, a larger more powerful nation, (usually hitting a civilian, or at least non-military target) in an attempt to provoke a military response against their country of origin as a means of attracting support against the larger nation.

I would like to point out that this definition is from before September 11, 2001, that is why I had to state that it was the real definition, as the word has changed in common meaning and usage since then.

I would also like to note that it is very possible that Anonymous would fall under the scope of a domestic terrorist group, but domestic terrorism is and has been very poorly defined for quite a while, to the point where, something like a bank robbery could could count as an act of terrorism, even though it is really just a mish-mash of assault/murder charges and robbery.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

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.

The only difference between terrorist and freedom fighter is the side you are standing on.

Anonymous isn't really a group, it's more an idea or movement.
There are people who are apart of the movement who can be considered terrorists but it isn't really a group and the media still don't understand that.

movement is a little big a word. Its more a label everyone is allowed to use if he can combine some voices of the internet.

 

[icame]

No their not, though it is funny how retarded they are.

Were going to DDOS the FBI website, truly this will make our point known! Truly everyone will see the errors of their ways! ...Are those police sirens?

 

[Wintermoot]

in a certain sense yes but their goals are good ones (freedom of information)

 

[Jonluw]

Terrorists use threats of violence (physical or otherwise) to get someone to cave in to their demands, and achieve their goals.

The only times Anonymous uses violence (such as ddos attacks), it's in order to punish someone they think deserves it (or it's just for the sake of causing chaos). They're not terrorists, they're vigilantes and troublemakers.

 

[Gindil]

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?

You forgot the other things Anonymous has done:

Kitty abuser 1 [http://www.mamapop.com/2010/08/anonymous-group-totally-4chan-cat-abuser.html]

4chan vs puppy thrower [http://gawker.com/5626105/4chan-on-the-hunt-for-puppy+throwing-girl]

Look, it's a community just like any other one. They have people that agree or disagree with things. So really, let's try to hold off on the terrorist threats please? That's just a buzzword thrown around for people the government doesn't like.