Hmmmm. We're already speaking about Anonymous as though it exists, in any conceivable respect, as a definable group. Hilarious. If we give one particle of dust worth of respect to this notion then all is lots. Please, please, think for a minute about this. If "Anonymous" is a "group" and, God forbid, this "group" [hilariously] is a "threat"...need I go on? Alas, probably I must. How to say it...let me think. Ok, let's say I'm the Pentagon and I'm really afraid of the Internet and all it entails. What am I then afraid of. Anonymity, of course, because anonymity affords one the right of action. Wouldn't I conduct constant operations under the name...wait for it...Anonymous? Of course I would. The great thing about my strategy is that the primitive minds would rally (thoughtlessly) against the very idea of putting down the outlaw. Like clockwork, the mentally addled public would by degrees accept my tyranny. First, and this really splits my gut, they would accept the absurd notion that "anonymous" is actually a thing, a cohesive group, and that's just plain funny! Next they would accept that this "group" despite the fact that it is leaderless, membership-less, and utterly lack cohesion vis a vis politics, class, age, gender, nationality, religion and ought all else. Last, they would: 1. accept the definable existence of the [non-existent in any definable sense] group Anonymous; and 2. accept what it says, for instance what it says about some non-acceptable politician or another; 3. accept it as a threat. I My plan is great, therefore. The idiot public will actually swallow the erroneous notion that the group exists [cohesively] and that it does this thing or another, lock stock and barrel. Really now, how hilarious is that?