I think I clearly stated that it's wrong. However, I can guarantee you, that (at least outside of the USA) a lot don't see it as an attack against their personal lifestyle and therefor "terrorism", but a small inconvenience, while seeing the other as an atrocity with the culprits getting away - every time.

I'm in Switzerland, having an account with Postfinance who also cut off Assanges / Wikileaks account and gotten under attack. From the remarks people left in the Swiss online press, it's clear where the sympathy lies - not with the financial buisness.

Journalists release documents they received. That's their job. Has their ever been a newspaper in your country that's gotten cut off of their accounts because of that? Just so, without a legal lawsuit and decision? Without giving the defendant the possibility to appeal that decision? It sure hasn't here in Switzerland, at least not before Wikileaks.

The Georgia Straight was fined a million dollars by the provincial government here for exposing details about the legislature raid. It didn't stick though.

Dude, just forget it.

So are DDOS the same as bombing now? You're not focusing in on the part of your argument that I maintain is flawed; DDOS is not terrorism. It doesn't matter whether computers at a credit card company or Paypal or civilian or government.

DDOS is not terrorism.
DDOS is not terrorism.
DDOS is not terrorism, terrorism has a real definition that does not include DDOS.

*clicks heals*

There, that should do it.

And children are starving in Ethiopia! See, I can change the subject too :p

Seriously. Maybe it is a weak act (If it was a bunch of guys in turbans who did this, or China, people would think differently, but whatever), but it is still an act of terrorism. It was an attack on a civilian group in an effort to inconvenience/scare people into doing what they want.

At the very least: It was an act to scare/terrorize the people in power at those companies to bend to the will of the haxx0rerz.

So public opinion and if people care makes THIS right, but not all the crap the US did/was accused of doing/got caught doing over the past few decades? :p

If you are using public opinion as the metric for if something counts as terrorism, NEVER discuss the Middle East :p. Every major power will simultaneously be pure ebil and innocent at the same time, depending on who you ask.

That being said, public opinion DOES become the metric, over time. But looking at the facts, it is kind of hard to say that Pedos Anonymous was doing anything other than an act of terrorism against the companies (just a question of if anyone cares).

Generally ,most major newspapers aren't releasing active military secrets. In fact, most reporters agree to NOT do that. That is the entire premise behind embedded reporters. Geraldo (who actually works for FOX News these days :p) got kicked out of his gig as an embedded reporter for releasing too much information. Why? Because it could have put people at risk. I think they let him go back after a while, but was still funny at the time.

While we are getting off the subject (you are good at that :p), I would actually reference a recent issue of Ultimate Spider-Man for a VERY good take on this kind of situation.
To provide context, mutants are bad. Kitty Pryde is a mutant. Evil FBI guys were coming to arrest her/provoke her. She went crazy and ran off with the writer's avatar. Mary Jane had footage of the FBI guys being evil.
So she took it to the only reporter in the world. Now, on the one hand, it was information that she felt needed to get out (exactly what a reporter should do). On the other hand, she was concerned about how it would impact those who were involved. The solution? The reporter actually REPORTED on the information, while not making it incredibly public. The information got out (FBI ebil!), the press were made aware so they could say that, but nobody (except for the ebil FBI :p) were hurt. Well, and JJ, but he got shot in the head for other reasons :P

Is it a perfect solution? Hell no. It is a comic book for Christ's sake. But it also should remind people that it is possible to report information (and spin the hell out of it) without jeopardizing security of organizations, people, or governments. There IS a middle ground guys...
So if a cyber-attack is launched against every single air traffic control tower (Die Hard 5! :p), it won't be terrorism in your eyes? I mean, there are no bombs involved (until John McClane gets involved)! It is just a DDOS. And DDOS is not terrorism!

It could be if the target was anything endangering national security. The system of an nuclear reaktor, Norad or anything in that department. Then he MIGHT have a case.
Hmm, which reminds me of that Stuxnet thing in Iran. I wonder how he'd call it if evidence came out linking the US somehow with it - somehow I doubt it would be terrorism....

It would seem you have yet to address the real subject.

This is what I am talking about. Nobody launched an attack on an air traffic control tower. All of your absurd hypotheticals are pointless to any rational person.

Then please, humor me. I am trying to learn to be rational.

Now, a DDOS attack is not terrorism. Right? Okay.

But wait, if you attack an air traffic tower, it is terrorism? Fair enough.

What if you DDOS an air traffic tower? I am so confused. Please, explain this to me.

Oh, thanks mysterious person to the side who hands me a letter. This letter says that a DDOS attack can be a terrorist attack, if it is against an air traffic tower. Okay.

So:
If you attack a government, it isn't terrorism. I think most of the Middle East would beg to differ (and the United States, but we alternate between terrorism and act of war, so whatever). Okay
If you DDOS attack someone, it isn't terorrism, UNLESS said DDOS attack is against one of the following:
a nuclear reactor
NORAD (wait, that is government...)
an air traffic control tower

If you bomb a credit card company (but make sure to get all the people out of the building), it is not terrorism (as per the Fight Club example :p)

Oh, I am so confused!

And siannah, even though you clearly have no intention of replying to me, on the topic of if the US was behind Stuxnet (and dude, we almost definitely were :p): That may or may not count as terrorism (to my understanding, it was more an attempt to destroy a program, not scare people into compliance), but it sure as hell counts as an act of war.

Again, what are you talking about? Nobody bombed anything and there is no air traffic control tower in this story. Your opinion doesn't seem to stand without being propped up by childish pseudo comparisons. Can you explain yourself without mentioning bombs or child molesters or animal abuse or traffic control towers or vacationing Americans or murderous folk singers?

Sure.

This was an act of terrorism. Why? Because it was an attack against an organization with the sole goal of terrorizing/scaring people into complying to the desires of Anon (and likely Wikileaks).

If you read the thread, you'll see why the rest was mentioned. But that is the summary.

Alright, that's a good start.

I disagree with your definition of terrorism. Interfering with the credit card companies' business and PayPal's business was a non-violent protest. An excerpt from the Wikipedia article on terrorism says this:

"Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies."

Fu** you, it's 2:30 AM here and I should be sleeping already. :)
In Switzerland we have the Tinner case. I won't go to deep in it, the short version is: Father and two sons in the engineering field, linked with the production of the pakistanian atomic bomb (the so called Khan network). Urs Tinner spend 4 years in custody, files gotten destroid by the swiss government under "emergency law", destroying the case. Official reason: to secure these documents won't fall in wrong hands. Inofficially it had writed "CIA pressure in favor of an informant" all over it.
Swiss parliament criticised it harshly with little to non avail.

More recent happening: current US ambassador apologized for his predecessor's leaked cables about Switzerland. But at the same time also strongly warning, to give Assange political asylum (which he apparently considered) would seriously hampering the US / Switzerland relationship because he's a wanted criminal.

Somehow the lines between scaring / terrorizing / trying to bend to their will on one side and diplomacy on the other, suddenly don't seem so clear, aren't they? According to your standards, how many guys in Washington are guilty of terrorism?

I stated twice that I don't see it as right. Public opinion won't change that.
However, important here is the part about public opinion becoming the metric over time. And that's EXACTLY why it's a good thing, if this stick is pointing in the other direction for ONCE. We know how public opinion was used and abused by the government time and time again, for example to justify the Iraq war.

And no, that still won't make it right.

And here comes the point where the military claims everything not being the official version and cleared as an active military secret. Way to hide your screw-ups, wrong turns and oops moments. Embedded journalism serves one thing only: to control what's going out. After all, history is writen by the winners. Or have you seen one report of dead civilians caused by wrong information / bad intelligence work / whatever over "embedded journalism"?
Last but not least, let's not forget how many and what newspapers have direct access to Wikileaks files, releasing these active military secrets. Among the best and most respected in the world.

It depends how you define violence.

During the recent presidential election, there was (not) a big ruckus raised about people in the Black Panthers organization standing outside of polling places holding batons in a menacing fashion. Ignoring the outcome (ie. the politics), there was no violence. But would you call that a "non-violent" protest/statement?

To get into this from another angle: We live in the information age (is that the current name? Basing this off the last time I played Civ :p). Many of the older laws and terms don't really directly map to the digital issues (is software piracy theft? Is online harrassment harassment? etc), which causes problems.

So let's look at this from another angle: Let's say this isn't the "I am going to go throw a grenade into a window!" terrorism, and more the "I am going to take these people hostage until Jimmy Carter gives me moneys" terrorism. They were basically saying "I am going to take these people's bank accounts and stuff hostage until you guys give Wikileaks access to his moneys".
Hence, the grey area.
Again, you are changing the subject and trying to make it about different stuff.

But, to answer your question: Yeah, there are a metric crapton of terrorists in DC. Even more in Langley :p. CIA are also some of the biggest drug dealers in the world (a large amount of the current crap in South America can probably be traced to various government agencies around the world. And the CIA, pre-neutering, were even scarier than they are now).

As it has been said, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I just find it kind of hard to identify an organization that attacks a civilian target (and civilians) as "freedom fighters".

Well... an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on violence says this:

"Violence is the expression of physical force against one or more people, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt."

And if we go by dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic

Only definition 2 requires physical action, and number 6 is decidedly non-physical.