• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is "Anonymous" a Terrorist Organization?

Is "Anonymous" a Terrorist Organization?


  • Total voters
    27

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,606
Reaction score
32,215
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Last edited:
When the majority of property is imaginary, crimes against imaginary property are serious business.
 
they clearly want to be labeled thay way, to get attention and play the victim.

meanwhile, they're too stupid to call it "NDAA 2012".
 
From free dictionary:
Noun 1. terrorist organization - a political movement that uses terror as a weapon to achieve its goals
foreign terrorist organization, FTO, terrorist group
act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

I don't know if you can consider hacking as "violent" but their actions can certainly be detrimental. Stealing private data associated with private citizen identities and using that information to coerce or create a message, or spreading that information publically can be incredibly harmful. Taking down government websites can affect security, the electric grid, satellites, etc., etc., etc....assuming they're skilled enough to get past the high level security.

I'm not quite sure, to be honest. If nothing else I'd call them a menace and a threat to private citizens. It seems all too often that anonymous' actions directly harm "innocent" bystanders. Personally, I have no interest in being a sideline "victim" of "war" with these people. If my credit information, checking information, or identifying documents are released to the public I expect anybody found to have had a hand in that action to be punished to the fullest extent of the law...and I'll sue their cowardly asses in civil court, too.

By declaring war they're issuing a threat of violence. If they follow through on that declaration then they're treasonous little snots and behaving in a manner similar to terrorists. Either way they'll get what's coming to them.
 
they clearly want to be labeled thay way, to get attention and play the victim.

meanwhile, they're too stupid to call it "NDAA 2012".

What's NDAA?
 
Anonymous has declared war.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...056-anonymous-declares-war-us-government.html

In their statement, they say they have been classified as a terrorist organization (I don't know if they have been or not). I see terrorism as involving physical violence toward people or property. What do you think? In your opinion, are they a terrorist organization?

I think that to describe them as terrorists attributes to them a much greater level of intelligence and direction than I see any reason to suppose that they have.
 
What's NDAA?

The National Defense Authorization Act. Its signed every year since the 1940s, to fund operations of our military. And yet Anonymous and like-minded morons seem to thing 2012 is the first time one was ever signed.

:)
 
Anybody who seeks to purposely destabilize or destroy the US government and its leadership is a terrorist. If they are American citizens, they are traitors and terrorists. If they are foreign citizens, they're toast.
 
Is it possible to terrorize from the confines of your mother's basement?
 
Don't know if "terrorist" fits, but declaring yourself at war with the United States government does make you treasonous.

18 U.S.C. 2381:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Also 2384, Seditious Conspiracy:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

And 2385:

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

So, if the government decides to pursue them, they're doing time.
 
They cannot be trusted. That is for sure. They clearly support piracy (illegal downloads) because they are allowed to "file share" and yet they provide themselves with music and movies for free. They make it theirs without paying for it. They try to paint themselves as "for the good of the people," but I really just don't see it. Sure some of the things they do are good, but they just cannot be trusted. I think that is the big thing. And I think they should be called iTerrorists. I mean if they actually had to deal with actual counter terror groups....I think there would be a lot of pants wetting.
 
Anonymous has declared war.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...056-anonymous-declares-war-us-government.html

In their statement, they say they have been classified as a terrorist organization (I don't know if they have been or not). I see terrorism as involving physical violence toward people or property. What do you think? In your opinion, are they a terrorist organization?

I think of terrorism a little differently. To me, the word "terrorism" ought to refer to the use of fear tactics against a civilian population.

I think the government uses the term to define any non-state hostile actor.

For that reason, I voted "yes." It's all semantics, though. "Guerilla" is probably a better word to describe them.
 
I don't know if I would label them as a terrorist group, but I would label them as stupid.
 
Apple might have a problem with that. Call them "E-Terrorists" instead.

Oh I thought apple had some sort of new plan. iTerror to go with iVXCloud.
 
To me, Terrorism implies violence. Anonymous is not violent, so I would not call them terrorists. Common criminals and assholes would be as far as I would go.
 
To me, Terrorism implies violence. Anonymous is not violent, so I would not call them terrorists. Common criminals and assholes would be as far as I would go.

I think I agree with you (still a little up in the air). I think there are good arguments that they're terrorists because they could cause real harm and disruption of people's lives. At the same time though, the picture of terrorism in my mind is of property damage and, worse, actual physical harm to people. Also, I don't want to call every nuisance terrorists.
 
Anonymous has declared war.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...056-anonymous-declares-war-us-government.html

In their statement, they say they have been classified as a terrorist organization (I don't know if they have been or not). I see terrorism as involving physical violence toward people or property. What do you think? In your opinion, are they a terrorist organization?
Taking down websites and releasing some info here and there hardly causes "terror" nor is it violent. They might be criminals, but I don't think they are terrorists.

Moreover, I don't have much of a problem with what they do. Obviously, if I had a website and they took it down or hacked into my database, I would be pissed. However, most of their actions are relativity harmless. It's a difficult to thing to get worked up about.
 
I think that to describe them as terrorists attributes to them a much greater level of intelligence and direction than I see any reason to suppose that they have.

Based on what I've heard and read, it sounds more like a bunch of punk kids.
 
Going by a literal definition, I would call them "cyberterrorists." Whether or not the term terrorists necessarily implies "evil" or "wrong" is another matter entirely.
 
Let's see...a secret, private, anonymous group of people who threaten and do harm when their goals are not met? And who claim to speak for The People, without being held responsible for their actions by said People?

They might not be terrorists, but they certainly do act extremely unfairly.
 
Anybody who seeks to purposely destabilize or destroy the US government and its leadership is a terrorist. If they are American citizens, they are traitors and terrorists. If they are foreign citizens, they're toast.

I wonder if that means that politicians fall into that category, they seems to be hell bent on destabilizing and or destroying the other side which might include leaders at times.

And wasn't Fox news caught hacking a while back, maybe that makes them terrorist too.
 
Last edited:
I'll point something out that maybe you guys have already considered...

The government has broad public support to fight "terrorism." There is legislation out there that helps them fight "terrorism."

Clearly, there is an incentive for the government to broaden the definition of "terrorism" to include as much bad stuff as possible.

Terrorism means something different today than it did pre-9/11 for that reason.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if that means the GOP fall into that category, they seems to be hell bent on destabilizing and or destroying our leadership at times.

And wasn't Faux news caught hacking a while back, maybe that makes them terrorist too.

Thanks for introducing the partisanship to this thread had been lacking up to this point. :roll: Disappointing comment, UM. :(
 
Back
Top Bottom