PSN Free Stuff!

Ghost Leader wrote:

NiteKrawler wrote:

GL: If you believe at all that Anon is a terrorist organization, then you have to admit that they did not do it. The number one goal of terrorist organizations is publicity. They want and need people to know that they are responsible. They are trying to send a message and they cannot do that when people don't think it is them. That's just how terrorist orgs work. And remember that one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Anon has never been shown to physically hurt a single soul.

The dictionary wrote:

cyberterrorism
- 2 dictionary results
World English Dictionary
cyberterrorism (ˈsaɪbəˌtɛrərɪzəm)

— n
the illegal use of computers and the internet to achieve some goal

'cyberterrorist

Main Entry: cyberterrorism
Part of Speech: n
Definition: terrorism conducted in cyberspace, where criminals attempt to disrupt computer or telecommunications service
Etymology: cyber- 'cybernetics' + terrorism
Usage: computing

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cyberterrorism
Anonymous is a terrorist organization by base definition. And it's always the so-called "freedom fighters" who commit the worst atrocities.

Makes me think of The Rock....not the wrestler, but the movie with Nicholas Cage & Sean Connery.

I never said they weren't a terrorist organization. And you are very wrong about "freedom fighters" committing the worst atrocities. Just take a look at what our own military did to the Native Americans. Or the stories of what our soldiers did in Vietnam.

NiteKrawler wrote:

Just take a look at what our own military did to the Native Americans.

Yes, let's not mention the who knows how many men, women, and children killed and scalped (not necessarily in that order) by them. But that doesn't matter because "it's their culture", right?




But it's just how they say "Hello, come on in out of the cold for some hot soup and tea" in their language, I'm sure.

Quote :

Or the stories of what our soldiers did in Vietnam.

While nonetheless inexcusable, that was the result of a serious breakdown in discipline that isn't as widespread in today's US armed forces. And let's not forget the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were responsible for just as many, if not more, atrocities than our own side was.

I never said they didn't do it to us too. But they weren't terrorists. So that just helps me make my point that terrorists don't commit nearly the atrocities that other more accepted groups do. In fact, many dissident groups make it a point to avoid killing.

NiteKrawler wrote:

I never said they didn't do it to us too. But they weren't terrorists.

The point of terrorism isn't necessarily to kill, but to force a more powerful entity to conform to your demands. A bit like a hostage situation. Besides, need I mention we were at war with the Native Americans and North Vietnamese and Vietcong? All bets are off in war. The point is to break the enemy's back and win, not to be the nice guy. Why do you think we coated places like Berlin with hundreds of tons of high explosive and incendiary during WWII? To destroy the enemy's critical infrastructure. If they can't produce weapons, they can't fight. If they can't fight, the fewer casualties we and our allies take. The aim is not to kill civilians, but when those civilians are building planes, bombs, and rifles, they're part of the military industrial complex. Destroying the military industrial complex means destroying the enemy's will and ability to fight. Destroying their will and ability to fight means winning the war. Civilian casualties are unfortunate, but a reality that can't be just done away with.

But the most important question I want to ask: Who said we were the "good guys" in any of these conflicts?

Quote :

So that just helps me make my point that terrorists don't commit nearly the atrocities that other more accepted groups do. In fact, many dissident groups make it a point to avoid killing.

Flying an airliner into a skyscraper full of innocent people who never did a thing to harm you is less cruel than double tapping an armed insurgent, an insurgent who would love nothing more than to crush your skull with the butt of his rifle, in the chest?

Flying the airliner into a building killing thousands is no more cruel than scalping a child, raping a woman before killing her, sticking dynamite into the privates of women and detonating it, etc. Yes, the 9/11 tragedy was an atrocity. But it was one of the worst massacres ever committed by a terrorist group. Things like that rarely happen. With terrorism, a single act rarely kills more than a few. The point I'm making is that there are groups out there that are more accepted who do the same, or worse things than terrorist groups. I'm not sure what you were trying to say in the first part of the post. I agree with it though.