>Wouldn't an anarchistic collective imply that they all follow a specific political philosophy?
No, by no means. You confuse the organizational state of anarchy with the political philosophy of anarchism, which is basically the mistrust or disbelief into authority. Anonymous is the former, but its "members" are not necessarily the latter. There are all sorts of ideologies in Anonymous. If you want to name a single, shared point of belief in Anonymous, your best bet is probably "For the Lulz", and even that is debatable.
>All you need is one strong personality that articulates the general urges of the group into a specific action they can all agree with and poof, you have yourself a leader and goals which can be worked toward.
That's quite right (besides the "strong personality" bit, you really only need a person with a good idea and the ability to articulate it), but that still doesn't mean Anonymous has leaders. You completely fail to differentiate between the collective Anonymous and operations or projects which operate under the banner of Anonymous[1]. The relation between the two is one-sided - the latter affiliates with the former, not vice versa.
>but it's the same as how terrorist cells and abortion-clinic bombers work, though spread out over the internet and bombing websites instead.
Ho, are we falling back to guilt-by-association fallacies now? It is certainly true that operations affiliated with Anonymous have a tendency to operate very far inside the grey areas of legality and often even far beyond that. So are many grass-root or civil right movements. Declaring Anonymous as a whole equivalent to a terrorist cell because they break the law and use similar organizational methods as established enemy stereotypes is ignoring the aforementioned points. It's equally as low as declaring the Occupy movement as domestic terrorism because you disagree with them.
>So don't tell me Anonymous can or can't declare or deny support (which it has many times in the past).
No, it didn't. Persons, projects or operations affiliated with Anonymous did. Anonymous as a whole does not, nor will it ever have official support or opposition of anything, be it ideological positions, organizations or specific persons.
Besides, don't you tell me what Anonymous can or can't do - I've participated in or observed first hand a few projects and operations directly or indirectly affiliated with Anonymous myself over the last two years, and have been involved with the culture typically associated with them. I've seen live and in action what I am talking about. Do you?
[1] Which anything and everybody can, that's the whole point.
I'm a little too tired right now to comment on the rest but the comparison to abortion-clinic bombers is accurate. They basically pioneered the use of leaderless resistance in the United States (i'm not very familiar with historical use in the rest of the world). I wasn't making the suggestion that Anonymous hates abortion doctors if that's what you're inferring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance#Internet_...
The way you talk about 'Anonymous as a whole' is ridiculous. They don't do anything as a whole by definition. You have to consider their rhetoric in general and whether or not they accept actions taken by members of the group. If one guy says 'we hate Scientology' and the majority of people who identify with Anonymous agree with that guy in principle, guess what? The group has just made an implicit collective declaration. You can't identify as a member of a group and be an active participant in it and then claim no responsibility for the group's actions just because there's supposedly no leader or official stance on anything. You are an accomplice, or if you prefer, a willing participant by association. This wouldn't be the case if the entire idea of the group weren't that there is no central decision-making; you can distance yourself from a voice which no longer represents the majority, but you cannot distance yourself from that which cannot be identified unless you step outside of the ether entirely.
Which actions do you mean? The botnets, sqli sweeps, social engineering or meaningless skirmishes with the jester and other pseudo-blackhat douchebags? I never really paid attention to the early stuff due to a loathing for anything from 4chan. I'm no expert, but one doesn't need to be a scholar to watch kids at play.
No, by no means. You confuse the organizational state of anarchy with the political philosophy of anarchism, which is basically the mistrust or disbelief into authority. Anonymous is the former, but its "members" are not necessarily the latter. There are all sorts of ideologies in Anonymous. If you want to name a single, shared point of belief in Anonymous, your best bet is probably "For the Lulz", and even that is debatable.
>All you need is one strong personality that articulates the general urges of the group into a specific action they can all agree with and poof, you have yourself a leader and goals which can be worked toward.
That's quite right (besides the "strong personality" bit, you really only need a person with a good idea and the ability to articulate it), but that still doesn't mean Anonymous has leaders. You completely fail to differentiate between the collective Anonymous and operations or projects which operate under the banner of Anonymous[1]. The relation between the two is one-sided - the latter affiliates with the former, not vice versa.
>but it's the same as how terrorist cells and abortion-clinic bombers work, though spread out over the internet and bombing websites instead.
Ho, are we falling back to guilt-by-association fallacies now? It is certainly true that operations affiliated with Anonymous have a tendency to operate very far inside the grey areas of legality and often even far beyond that. So are many grass-root or civil right movements. Declaring Anonymous as a whole equivalent to a terrorist cell because they break the law and use similar organizational methods as established enemy stereotypes is ignoring the aforementioned points. It's equally as low as declaring the Occupy movement as domestic terrorism because you disagree with them.
>So don't tell me Anonymous can or can't declare or deny support (which it has many times in the past).
No, it didn't. Persons, projects or operations affiliated with Anonymous did. Anonymous as a whole does not, nor will it ever have official support or opposition of anything, be it ideological positions, organizations or specific persons.
Besides, don't you tell me what Anonymous can or can't do - I've participated in or observed first hand a few projects and operations directly or indirectly affiliated with Anonymous myself over the last two years, and have been involved with the culture typically associated with them. I've seen live and in action what I am talking about. Do you?
[1] Which anything and everybody can, that's the whole point.